Re: [sip-overload] Gen-ART review for draft-ietf-soc-load-control-event-package-10.txt

Charles Shen <qs2005@columbia.edu> Mon, 25 November 2013 09:05 UTC

Return-Path: <charles.newyork@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: sip-overload@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sip-overload@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA5DB1ACCE0; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 01:05:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.277
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w_NifkQqtwHY; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 01:05:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ob0-x233.google.com (mail-ob0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 591321ACCDE; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 01:05:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ob0-f179.google.com with SMTP id wm4so3828258obc.24 for <multiple recipients>; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 01:05:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=mfTZL817in/Vxb37/iniXUTaShgRbeNPxN+exmtTd0k=; b=Dr13kJYsqpOLjy2qSG5MDhWys0JtApJRkRHVUqVSpyqqCIupmEiil2YtYOcKgBfv13 T2ZYacg4aT4qEUepj4NqlwZFbKDNuhxXr9TTqNc09/eUGqmcitBgCHmj3zCUkvu9iqdK k/Gaweb5YJPil5Ec86WOQemztmHUNtkzVhBuz2gmO38w85n1bnDXIDTGHlvxSBp7KKbL x2GvmDRLE1xL8KD41UZSak2+zIVxxkFh45qvv3Ch0ePPa8jPXJ74KN1wAI1fXK2ZU/40 5PJzIxKRcschNsmYHCavgurN71KsfKXmXZZakdCA95sWgganZZwppI5YF0Vfj+pDMjC/ +9gw==
X-Received: by 10.60.116.230 with SMTP id jz6mr24607258oeb.21.1385370356500; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 01:05:56 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: charles.newyork@gmail.com
Received: by 10.182.27.9 with HTTP; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 01:05:36 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA12947F8F@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com>
References: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA12941662@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <CAPSQ9ZXkEBd5JJu-mt08+StkPY5R4KfYwsqcWS35AFSLLxaFXw@mail.gmail.com> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA12947F8F@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com>
From: Charles Shen <qs2005@columbia.edu>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 17:05:36 +0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: AVrkgMfi7SzSuuv9Gv7R6ncACek
Message-ID: <CAPSQ9ZVmoCc3xr_Ui=Wrua7D8K0yp3XGWMHq1KN1u+-CEWQH1Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0115e84afb500204ebfcab4a
Cc: "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "sip-overload@ietf.org" <sip-overload@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-soc-load-control-event-package.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-soc-load-control-event-package.all@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sip-overload] Gen-ART review for draft-ietf-soc-load-control-event-package-10.txt
X-BeenThere: sip-overload@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 25 Nov 2013 09:05:58 -0000

Hi Dan,

On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 1:09 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) <dromasca@avaya.com>wrote;wrote:

>
>
> Also, in the same list of requirements I miss an explicit requirement on
> persistency.
>
>
>
>
>
> This part I am not sure if I understand clearly, could you please
> elaborate a bit?
>
>
>
>  *[[DR]] *In section 5.3, second paragraph there are a couple of
> references to the persistency of subscriptions of neighboring SIP entities
> and periodic refresh. Should not this be mentioned explicitly in the list
> in Section 4?
>

I see what you mean. In fact I tend to think of this as one of those
micro-aspects that have been covered by existing macro-clauses.
Specifically, as Section 5.3 says:

 Key to this is the fact that following initial
   subscription, the notifier sends a notification without a body if no
   load filtering policy is defined (Section 6.7
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-soc-load-control-event-package-11#section-6.7>),
and that the
   subscription needs to be refreshed periodically to make it
   persistent, as described in Section 4.1
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-soc-load-control-event-package-11#section-4.1>
and Section 4.2 of [RFC6665]
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6665#section-4.2>.


The behavior of notifier sending a notification following initial
subscription is mandated in Section 6.7 of this document. And the behavior
of periodic refresh is specified in Section 4.1 and Section 4.2 of RFC
6665.

Both this document and RFC 6665 have already been explicitly listed in
Section 4 of this document. So they seem to have covered the persistency
issue.

That said, I am open to add another explicit clause for this aspect if you
really feel strongly about it. Please let me know. Thanks again!

Charles