Subject: Re: [sip-overload] WG attention to 2 questions on draft-ietf-soc-overload-control-12

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 16:14:34 -0500

On 04/29/2013 08:54 AM, Volker Hilt wrote:
> Vijay, All,
>
> here are my comments on the two questions:
>
> - oc-algo parameter: this parameter specifies the semantics of the oc
> value and defines how that is to be interpreted by the receiver. It does
> not define the algorithm used to compute the oc-algo parameter. The
> important thing is that the receiver knows what it need to do with the
> received oc parameter. This is reflected in the following statement in
> the draft. Might be worth while to further clarify in the next rev of
> the draft.
>
>     The "oc-algo" parameter
>     contains a token or a list of tokens corresponding to the class of
>     overload control algorithms supported by the client.

Volker: OK, I will add a clarifying paragraph at the end of S4.2 as
follows:

    The "oc-algo" parameter does not define the exact algorithm to be
    used for traffic reduction, rather, the intent is to use any
    algorithm from a specific class of algorithms that affect traffic
    reduction similarly.  For example, the reference algorithm in
    Section 6.3 can be used as a loss-based algorithm, or it can be
    substituted by any other loss-based algorithm that results in
    equivalent traffic reduction.

> - I think the current writeup regarding the processing cycles dedicated
> to upstream neighbors is fine.

OK.

Unless someone has any further feedback on the above text, I will -13
early next week and that version can be moved ahead.

Thank you,

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA)
Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / [email-masked]
Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/  | Calendar: http://goo.gl/x3Ogq