[sip-overload] draft-ietf-soc-overload-control-02

"DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com> Tue, 29 March 2011 13:56 UTC

Return-Path: <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Original-To: sip-overload@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sip-overload@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1CD93A6A3E for <sip-overload@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 06:56:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.251, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PxAxd8pLH12H for <sip-overload@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 06:56:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smail3.alcatel.fr (smail3.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.56]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44E293A6A3C for <sip-overload@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 06:56:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.61]) by smail3.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id p2TDsSoA012987 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT) for <sip-overload@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 15:58:15 +0200
Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.46]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.61]) with mapi; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 15:58:07 +0200
From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: "sip-overload@ietf.org" <sip-overload@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 15:58:06 +0200
Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-soc-overload-control-02
Thread-Index: AcvuGVQm5sSS5QmxS+6HVpIltqJ6+Q==
Message-ID: <EDC0A1AE77C57744B664A310A0B23AE21EB2B35C@FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 155.132.188.83
Subject: [sip-overload] draft-ietf-soc-overload-control-02
X-BeenThere: sip-overload@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Overload <sip-overload.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 13:56:40 -0000

OK so you asked me to look at section 12 in the soc meeting and I have done so.

12.  100-Trying provisional response and overload control  parameters

   The overload control information sent from a SIP server to a client
   is transported in the responses.  While implementations can insert
   overload control information in any response, special attention
   should be accorded to overload control information transported in a
   100-Trying response.

   Traditionally, the 100-Trying response has been used in SIP to quench
   retransmissions.  In some implementations, the 100-Trying message may
   not be generated by the transaction user (TU) nor consumed by the TU.
   In these implementations, the 100-Trying response is generated at the
   transaction layer and sent to the upstream SIP client.  At the
   receiving SIP client, the 100-Trying is consumed at the transaction
   layer by inhibiting the retransmission of the corresponding request.
   Consequently, implementations that insert overload control
   information in the 100-Trying cannot assume that the upstream SIP
   client passed the overload control information in the 100-Trying to
   their corresponding TU.  For this reason, implementations that insert
   overload control information in the 100-Trying MUST re-insert the
   same (or updated) overload control information in the first non-100
   response being sent to the upstream SIP client.

My understanding for allowing this is simplicity in the sender (to treat all 100 and 1xx in a similar manner at the sender), rather than expectation that the receiver will receive it. I think this point needs to be made clearer.

Regards

Keith