Re: [sip-overload] draft minutes IETF83

"Vijay K. Gurbani" <> Mon, 23 April 2012 15:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3646321F84F1 for <>; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 08:00:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -109.326
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.326 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.273, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S8rj2qu+TV+B for <>; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 08:00:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76F8921F8476 for <>; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 08:00:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id q3NF0g8T013226 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 23 Apr 2012 10:00:42 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id q3NF0e91029536 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 23 Apr 2012 10:00:42 -0500
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.8/TPES) with ESMTP id q3NF0eE8027633; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 10:00:40 -0500 (CDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 10:05:44 -0500
From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <>
Organization: Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120329 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Ravindran, Parthasarathi" <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [sip-overload] draft minutes IETF83
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Overload <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 15:00:53 -0000

On 04/21/2012 08:21 PM, Ravindran, Parthasarathi wrote:
> Salvatore,
> I have provided the comment on ietf-soc-overload-control-08 that
> subscribe/notify mechanism mentioned in the draft has to updated with
> proper detail mechanism or the section to be removed and Vijay agrees
> to update the draft with the proper text in the next revision. Please
> update in the minutes.

Partha: I promised to get back to the list with proposed modifications
to S9.1.2 based on your feedback at the mic during the meeting.  So,
here goes.

I believe you are pointing out an incongruity in the text in S9, which
discusses two alternatives to providing overload control --- one is by
sending the feedback in the Via header (the chosen means) and the second
is through a subs/not event package.  The incongruity occurs because the
phrasing of the text in the subs/not alternative appears to imply that
subs/not is supported mechanism as well, which clearly it is not.

To remedy this, I propose that we simply remove Section 9 in its 
entirety.  The justification for choosing the Via header is already
provided in Section 3, as such Section 9 does not contribute much.
The subs/not package is used in a different scenario (as described
by Shen et al. [1]).  Having the discussion on subs/not in the
overload-control document may simply be distracting.

Let me know if that is okay with you and I will remove Section 9 in
the next revision.



- vijay
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA)
Email: vkg@{,} /