Re: [sip-overload] draft-ietf-soc-overload-control-13

There is at least one "other-algo", "rate".

When algo-list is included in the Via headers of a message sent by the 
client to the server, it may have multiple algorithms included in the 
algo-list - all the algorithms supported by the client.

When algo-list is included in the Via headers sent from the server to the 
client, it should have " one and only one algorithm" in the list.

Janet

From:   "Yu, James" <james.yu@neustar.biz>
To:     "hgs@cs.columbia.edu" <hgs@cs.columbia.edu>, "vkg@bell-labs.com" 
<vkg@bell-labs.com>, "volkerh@bell-labs.com" <volkerh@bell-labs.com>
Cc:     "sip-overload-bounces@ietf.org" <sip-overload-bounces@ietf.org>, 
"sip-overload@ietf.org" <sip-overload@ietf.org>
Date:   07/22/2013 03:19 PM
Subject:        [sip-overload]  draft-ietf-soc-overload-control-13
Sent by:        sip-overload-bounces@ietf.org

Hi, Henning, Vijay, Volker,

When I reviewed draft-ietf-soc-overload-rate-control-04.txt, I glanced 
through the syntax in this I-D to understand the oc related parameters.

When looking at “algo-list”, I wonder if there are two “other-algo” such 
as “abc” and “xyz”, ‘abc” and “xyz” won’t be comma-separated based on the 
oc-algo syntax.  It seems that algo-list would be 

 algo-list = “loss“ / other-algo

This would ensure that one and only one algorithm is present in algo-list. 
 If there is no algorithm other than “loss”, *(COMMA algo-list) would take 
care of that.

Since algo-list contains a single algorithm, may be it is better to use 
“algo” only.  Or if algo-list contains a list of comma separated 
algorithms, then alog-list and oc-algo can be modified so that oc-algo has 
a single “algo-list”.  The latter may be better because the current syntax 
would allow the same algorithm to appear more than once.

James_______________________________________________
sip-overload mailing list
sip-overload@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip-overload