Re: [sip-overload] draft-ietf-soc-overload-control-01 submitted

Two comments:

1) I think we need to say something about the interactions between this mechanism and B2BUAs. The configuration I have in mind is the following: INVITE requests from multiple end user devices are received by a proxy server which forwards them to a first Application Server (AS-A) acting as a B2BUA which in turn forwards it to another Application Server (AS-B). In case AS-B is overloaded, it makes sense to expect the proxy server to drop a percentage of new incoming requests based on the oc value rather than to rely on AS-A to do that. However, this requires AS-A to copy this parameter from one B2BUA side to the other. 

2) On new appendix B: I think Req23 should be changed from Yes to Partially. My understanding of the discussion we had on the list is that there are configurations where the requirement is hard to meet if the load balancer is not SIP-aware.

Bruno

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : sip-overload-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:sip-overload-
> bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Vijay K. Gurbani
> Envoyé : jeudi 20 janvier 2011 18:54
> À : sip-overload@ietf.org
> Objet : [sip-overload] draft-ietf-soc-overload-control-01 submitted
> 
> Folks: Pursuant to our virtual meeting in December-1-2010 [1],
> an update to draft-ietf-soc-overload-control has been submitted
> [2].
> 
> There are some substantive changes that have been discussed on
> the mailing list.  These are:
> 
> 1) The need to support algorithm agility (i.e., negotiate different
>   overload control algorithms).  This discussion resulted in the
>   addition of the "oc-algo" parameter and is discussed in Sections 4.2
>   and 5 of the -01 draft. [2]
> 
> 2) The caveats of sending overload control parameters in a 100-
>   Trying.  This discussion is captured in Section 12 of [2].
> 
> 3) The relationship of SIP overload control mechanism with other
>   overload control mechanisms.  This discussion is captured in
>   Section 13.
> 
> 4) A new appendix (Appendix B) has been added that tracks the
>   requirements of RFC5390 and how they apply to this draft.
> 
> 5) Miscellaneous changes to aid in readability.
> 
> The diff between -00 and -01 is available in [3].
> 
> Please take a look at the new revision and provide comments on
> the mailing list.
> 
> [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip-
> overload/current/msg00498.html
> [2]
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-soc-overload-control-
> 01.txt
> [3]
> http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-
> soc-overload-control-00.txt&url2=http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-soc-
> overload-control-01.txt
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> - 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/
> _______________________________________________
> sip-overload mailing list
> sip-overload@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip-overload