Re: [sip-overload] Local Policy Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-soc-load-control-event-package-05.txt

[Salvatore Loreto <[e-mail]>]

as co-chair I declare formal consensus on the SHOULD option

the authors of the draft event-package and overload-control are invited 
to update their draft
to reflect the decision

best regards
Salvatore

On 1/21/13 4:21 PM, Salvatore Loreto wrote:
> we have been discussing this issue (i.e. SHOULD vs MUST) over the last 
> couple of weeks or even more.
> THE result is that an explanatory text is the key thing to have either 
> way
> because of the different views on what a policy can and cannot be.
>
> having said that,
> my reading is that there is a large preference to use  SHOULD
> with the explanatory text proposed by Vijay below
>
> Salvatore
>
> On 1/14/13 8:17 PM, Vijay K. Gurbani wrote:
>
> [snip]
>>
>>    It is expected that a SIP client will follow local policy as long as
>>    the results in reduction of traffic is consistent with the SIP
>>    overload algorithm in effect at that node.  Accordingly, the
>>    normative behaviour in the next three paragraphs should be
>>    interpreted with the understanding that the SIP client will aim to
>>    preserve local policy to the fullest extent possible.
>>
>> And then we go down the three SHOULD paragraphs.
>>
>> I believe that suggesting specific text will help close this gap more
>> expeditiously.
>>
>> Is the above something that we can go with?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> - vijay
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sip-overload mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip-overload
>
>


-- 
Salvatore Loreto, PhD
www.sloreto.com