Subject: RE: [Sipping] Update to event throttles

From: "George Foti (QA/EMC)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 10:41:08 -0600

> The issue, I often see in the mobile handset world is that the usual
> concept of 'generality over efficiency' is a harder sell, since the
> devices are relatively more limited in capacity/power than, say, a
> wired IP phone with an AC adaptor. 
>

"Generality over efficiency" does not work in cellular.
Try and run Presence with  *very* limited presence data per buddy list in conjunction with a PTT service and you would conclude very fast that is not viable commercially.
I think this is pressing enough.

And there will not be a single solution to address the entire problem space as Markus stated.
Multiple solutions are needed and collectively  *may* provide an acceptable system.

Rgds/gf

Ericsson Canada

_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments of core SIP

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 18:33:09 -0500

Does the simple model really solve a problem?
The cases I have heard used to justify the simple model don't seem to be 
to be solved by it.

It would be helpful to have some plausible use cases that the simple 
throttle mechanism really solves.

	Paul

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 09:43:10 -0600

On Mar 15, 2005, at 5:33 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:

> The cases I have heard used to justify the simple model don't seem to 
> be to be solved by it.
>
The real "requirement" is to minimize the number of times I have to 
turn my radio on and transmit. This is quite independent of the 
bandwidth consumption, and directly proportional to the number of 
NOTIFY requests I receive (one NOTIFY in, one 200 OK out).

I think the simple model proposed in the current throttles draft does 
this fairly well. It does even better if used with with a notification 
aggregator.

--
Dean

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 13:44:24 -0500

Dean Willis wrote:
> The real "requirement" is to minimize the number of times I have to turn 
> my radio on and transmit. This is quite independent of the bandwidth 
> consumption, and directly proportional to the number of NOTIFY requests 
> I receive (one NOTIFY in, one 200 OK out).
> 

OK. If that is indeed the problem (Aki - do you agree?) then the rate 
throttling is probably a workable answer.

	Paul

---

From: Aki Niemi <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 09:10:44 +0200

> throttling is probably a workable answer.

Yes, I think Dean is right. Bandwidth savings are just one side effect 
of solving a more general requirement of being able to save resources, 
e.g., radio resources, processing capacity, etc.

This should be made much more apparent in the draft.

Cheers,
Aki