Subject: [Sipping] RE: Overload Requirements Draft

From: "Malas, Daryl" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 14:06:48 -0700

Dear all,

After reviewing the Overload requirements, requirement 13 got me
thinking.  The requirement states the following:

"The mechanism must allow a proxy to prioritize requests, so that
certain ones, such as call for emergency services, are still processed."

Although I think this is a smart thing to do, I think we should separate
how a proxy will respond to an "overload" notification from the
mechanism for notification.  In other words, I think the WG should work
on defining how a proxy should notify upstream proxies of its overloaded
state, but let application developers/vendors decide how they want to
handle the notification.  I think there are many different scenarios,
which would warrant different levels of treatment to overload messages.
This might include completely ignoring the information entirely.

I would assert the mechanism should in no way force the proxy into a
predefined manner of action, allowing the proxy to address the
overloaded state (e.g. call-by-call) in its own way.

The reason for this is that some proxies may have a specific purpose in
the network.  These purposes may be unique to emergency services, OSDA,
CNAM, etc..  I would want the ability to customize the proxy to respond
differently to an overload message based on its purpose.

I hope that was clear.  What does anyone else think?

Thanks...

Daryl Malas
Email: [email-masked]

_______________________________________________
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