Re: [sip-overload] The frequency of re-negotiating overload control schemes

["Vijay K. Gurbani" <[e-mail]>]

On 09/07/2011 09:28 AM, Volker Hilt wrote:
> I think this is a good case in which the server can switch. Otherwise
> the client forces the server into using a specific algorithm, which it
> may not even support.

True; this is the flip side that I did not consider.  I simply
assumed that the server supported all schemes offered by the client,
and would therefore zero in on the singleton algorithm in the
client's list.

> I think we are talking about a very small list. If you are concerned
> about the Via header length, we can make the identifiers very small.

That is okay.  I do not forsee having too many algorithms here.

On when to do re-negotiation:
> I think it makes sense to specify this for the server side. I.e., give
> recommendations of when the server may consider to change an algorithm.

Hmmm ... I had always assumed that this will be done on the client side.
However, if the client is sending the complete algorithm list in
every request, then it does not make sense to do it there for obvious
reasons.

So it looks like we will have to do it on the server side.  I will
update the draft as such.

Thanks,

- 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} / [e-mail]
Web:   http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/