Re: [sip-overload] WG attention to 2 questions on draft-ietf-soc-overload-control-12

Volker Hilt <volker.hilt@bell-labs.com> Mon, 29 April 2013 13:54 UTC

Return-Path: <volker.hilt@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 9D22821F9A3F for <sip-overload@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 06:54:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 tdNYaCyJFYsz for <sip-overload@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 06:54:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ihemail3.lucent.com (ihemail3.lucent.com [135.245.0.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07E3121F976A for <sip-overload@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 06:54:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from us70tusmtp2.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-5-2-64.lucent.com [135.5.2.64]) by ihemail3.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id r3TDsBp2024407 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <sip-overload@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 08:54:11 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from US70UWXCHHUB01.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (us70uwxchhub01.zam.alcatel-lucent.com [135.5.2.48]) by us70tusmtp2.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id r3TDsA4I023011 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <sip-overload@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:54:10 -0400
Received: from [149.204.61.163] (135.5.27.18) by US70UWXCHHUB01.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (135.5.2.48) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.247.3; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:54:10 -0400
Message-ID: <517E7B7F.7030609@bell-labs.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 15:54:07 +0200
From: Volker Hilt <volker.hilt@bell-labs.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: <sip-overload@ietf.org>
References: <51631B69.1010901@bell-labs.com>
In-Reply-To: <51631B69.1010901@bell-labs.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [135.5.27.18]
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.37
Subject: Re: [sip-overload] WG attention to 2 questions on draft-ietf-soc-overload-control-12
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: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 13:54:15 -0000

Vijay, All,

here are my comments on the two questions:

- oc-algo parameter: this parameter specifies the semantics of the oc 
value and defines how that is to be interpreted by the receiver. It does 
not define the algorithm used to compute the oc-algo parameter. The 
important thing is that the receiver knows what it need to do with the 
received oc parameter. This is reflected in the following statement in 
the draft. Might be worth while to further clarify in the next rev of 
the draft.

    The "oc-algo" parameter
    contains a token or a list of tokens corresponding to the class of
    overload control algorithms supported by the client.

- I think the current writeup regarding the processing cycles dedicated 
to upstream neighbors is fine.

Thanks,

Volker (as individual)




On 08.04.2013 21:32, Vijay K. Gurbani wrote:
> Folks: As part of the 2nd WGLC review done by Janet, there are 2
> questions that should benefit from some discussion.  These need
> to be closed so we can move the draft ahead to IESG.
>
> Please see [1] for these questions.  Some feedback would be
> appreciated.
>
> [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip-overload/current/msg00925.html
>
> Thanks,
>
> - vijay