[sip-overload] draft-ietf-soc-overload-control-05 released

"Vijay K. Gurbani" <vkg@bell-labs.com> Fri, 28 October 2011 21:54 UTC

Return-Path: <vkg@bell-labs.com>
X-Original-To: sip-overload@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sip-overload@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23B231F0C55 for <sip-overload@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 14:54:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.562
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.562 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.037, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rZ1zozwfiuTa for <sip-overload@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 14:54:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ihemail4.lucent.com (ihemail4.lucent.com [135.245.0.39]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31B8A1F0C54 for <sip-overload@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 14:54:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usnavsmail2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsmail2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.10]) by ihemail4.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id p9SLrxFG012001 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for <sip-overload@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 16:53:59 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from umail.lucent.com (umail-ce2.ndc.lucent.com [135.3.40.63]) by usnavsmail2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id p9SLrwjb016894 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <sip-overload@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 16:53:59 -0500
Received: from shoonya.ih.lucent.com (shoonya.ih.lucent.com [135.185.238.235]) by umail.lucent.com (8.13.8/TPES) with ESMTP id p9SLrwqD027860 for <sip-overload@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 16:53:58 -0500 (CDT)
Message-ID: <4EAB2526.3030307@bell-labs.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 16:56:54 -0500
From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <vkg@bell-labs.com>
Organization: Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:7.0) Gecko/20110927 Thunderbird/7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "sip-overload@ietf.org" <sip-overload@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.39
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 135.3.39.10
Subject: [sip-overload] draft-ietf-soc-overload-control-05 released
X-BeenThere: sip-overload@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Overload <sip-overload.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sip-overload>, <mailto:sip-overload-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip-overload>
List-Post: <mailto:sip-overload@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sip-overload-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip-overload>, <mailto:sip-overload-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 21:54:03 -0000

Folks: I have released a new version of the SIP overload control
draft, version -05.  (BTW, version -04 did not contain one crucial
consensus item that was hashed on the list, so -05 was released
shortly after -04 to account for this).

This version is a result of discussions since the Quebec City IETF.

More specifically, the following changes have occurred between -05
and -03:

- Editorial and typo nits.
- An expanded Section 5 to encode general behavior.
- Addition of S5.1 (Handshake to determine support for overload
   control).
- There was some confusion in Section 4.2 where -03 was ambiguous
   on whether or not a client should include "oc-algo" parameter.
   This has been ironed out in the first paragraph of S4.2.
- The client orders the overload control algorithms in the "oc-algo"
   parameter by decreasing order of preference, however, the server
   is not bound to pick the most preferred algorithm if it does not
   want to (new text in Section 4.2) [1].
- Clients continue to include all overload control algorithms in
   the "oc-algo" parameter even after the client and server have
   converged to mutually agreeable class (next text in Section 4.2) [2].
- Pushed the burden on re-negotiation to server instead of client
   (diffs in Section 5.8) [2].
- Specified a default (and reference) algorithm for loss-based
   overload control (Section 6.3).

-05 is available in [3], and a diff against -03 is available in
[4].

[1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip-overload/current/msg00666.html
[2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip-overload/current/msg00672.html
[3] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-soc-overload-control-05
[4] 
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-soc-overload-control-03.txt&url2=http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-soc-overload-control-05.txt

Please let me know if there are any further issues with the draft.

Thanks,

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60566 (USA)
Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / vijay.gurbani@alcatel-lucent.com
Web:   http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/