Re: [sip-overload] draft minutes IETF83

Volker Hilt <volker.hilt@bell-labs.com> Mon, 23 April 2012 15:22 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 457A321F8741 for <sip-overload@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 08:22:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, 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 f979GvVjNDnB for <sip-overload@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 08:22:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smail5.alcatel.fr (smail5.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.27]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEF1F21F8744 for <sip-overload@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 08:22:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.61]) by smail5.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id q3NFMh8E030395 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT) for <sip-overload@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:22:43 +0200
Received: from [149.204.61.31] (135.120.57.7) by FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (135.120.45.61) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:22:29 +0200
Message-ID: <4F95732A.1000506@bell-labs.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:20:10 +0200
From: Volker Hilt <volker.hilt@bell-labs.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: <sip-overload@ietf.org>
References: <4F93044A.5020207@ericsson.com> <387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6C0E228BF8@inba-mail01.sonusnet.com> <4F956FC8.2030503@bell-labs.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F956FC8.2030503@bell-labs.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.69 on 155.132.188.13
Subject: Re: [sip-overload] draft minutes IETF83
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, 23 Apr 2012 15:22:46 -0000

Vijay, Partha,

I think section 9 provides useful background on the discussions that 
lead to the current solution. For this reason, it would be good to keep 
this section in the draft.

Section 9 does not refer to a specific event packet. Rather, explains 
general design considerations. I'd suggest the following change to 
Section 9.1 to point this out more clearly.

9.1.  SIP Mechanism

    A SIP mechanism is needed to convey overload feedback from the
    receiving to the sending SIP entity.  Developing his feedback 
mechanisms involves a number of fundamental design choices that are 
discussed in this section.


Thanks,

Volker


On 23.04.2012 17:05, Vijay K. Gurbani wrote:
> 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.
>
> [1]
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-soc-load-control-event-package/
>
> Thanks,
>
> - vijay