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

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Tue, 03 December 2013 05:50 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
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 A4AE21AE051; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 21:50:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 FGDdkfgdS1ps; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 21:50:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [193.234.218.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCCFE1AE048; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 21:50:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C57A2CC61; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 07:50:21 +0200 (EET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jIt7J1T3ICaX; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 07:50:19 +0200 (EET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D51FB2CC48; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 07:50:19 +0200 (EET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <1385372383632.075e6c61@Nodemailer>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 07:50:19 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <12A2D7CB-96AE-424B-B6C9-B89DAC068E90@piuha.net>
References: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA129486F7@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <1385372383632.075e6c61@Nodemailer>
To: charles newyork <qs2005@columbia.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Cc: "Dan \(Dan\) Romascanu" <dromasca@avaya.com>, gen-art@ietf.org, sip-overload@ietf.org, draft-ietf-soc-load-control-event-package.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [sip-overload] [Gen-art] 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: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 05:50:27 -0000

Thank you Dan for the review and Charles for addressing the concerns. I have placed a no-obj position for this document on this week's IESG telechat.

Jari

On Nov 25, 2013, at 11:39 AM, charles newyork <qs2005@columbia.edu> wrote:

> That's great, I will keep it as in the current 11 version then. Again thank you so much for the careful review!
> 
> 
> 
> Charles 
> 
> —
> Sent from Mailbox for iPhone
> 
> On 周一, 11月 25, 2013 at 5:32 下午, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) <dromasca@avaya.com="mailto:dromasca@avaya.com">> wrote:
> Hi Charles,
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> No, this is not a strong comment. Actually all my comments were listed as ‘minor’ thus non-blocking vs. a document I appreciate as of good quality. Thank you for the dialog and for considering my comments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
>  
> 
> From: charles.newyork@gmail.com [mailto:charles.newyork@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Charles Shen
> Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 11:06 AM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: gen-art@ietf.org; draft-ietf-soc-load-control-event-package.all@tools.ietf.org; sip-overload@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Gen-ART review for draft-ietf-soc-load-control-event-package-10.txt
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> Hi Dan,
> 
> 
> 
>  
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 1:09 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) <dromasca@avaya.com> 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), and that the
> 
>    subscription needs to be refreshed periodically to make it
> 
>    persistent, as described in Section 4.1 and Section 4.2 of [RFC6665].
> 
>  
> 
> 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 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art