Subject: [sip-overload] draft-ietf-soc-overload-control-01 submitted

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 11:54:07 -0600

Folks: Pursuant to our virtual meeting in December-1-2010 [1],
an update to draft-ietf-soc-overload-control has been submitted
[2].

There are some substantive changes that have been discussed on
the mailing list.  These are:

1) The need to support algorithm agility (i.e., negotiate different
  overload control algorithms).  This discussion resulted in the
  addition of the "oc-algo" parameter and is discussed in Sections 4.2
  and 5 of the -01 draft. [2]

2) The caveats of sending overload control parameters in a 100-
  Trying.  This discussion is captured in Section 12 of [2].

3) The relationship of SIP overload control mechanism with other
  overload control mechanisms.  This discussion is captured in
  Section 13.

4) A new appendix (Appendix B) has been added that tracks the
  requirements of RFC5390 and how they apply to this draft.

5) Miscellaneous changes to aid in readability.

The diff between -00 and -01 is available in [3].

Please take a look at the new revision and provide comments on
the mailing list.

[1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip-overload/current/msg00498.html
[2] 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-soc-overload-control-01.txt
[3] 
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-soc-overload-control-00.txt&url2=http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-soc-overload-control-01.txt

Thank you,

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60566 (USA)
Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / [email-masked]
Web:   http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/

---

From: Antoine Roly <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:08:30 +0100

Hi,

There are some small differences between the example in section 3 and 
the syntax definition in section 14. It could be a good thing to correct 
them for readability.

- In section 14, it is:
oc-validity = "oc_validity" [EQUAL delta-ms]
but in section 3, in the response
...;oc-validity=500;...

Which one is correct? With "-" or "_" ?

- In section 14 it is:
oc-seq = (1*12DIGIT "." 1*5DIGIT)
but in the example it is
;oc-seq=1282321615.781;...

IIUC the definition and the example does not match.
I think it should be something like :
oc-seq = "oc-seq" EQUAL 1*12DIGIT "." 1*5DIGIT

Antoine

---

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 08:56:21 -0600

> the syntax definition in section 14. It could be a good thing to correct

Antoine: Thanks for a close read.  More inline.

> Which one is correct? With "-" or "_" ?

Good catch; the one with a "-" is correct.  I have modified this in
my working copy and the modification will show up in the next
revision.

> oc-seq = "oc-seq" EQUAL 1*12DIGIT "." 1*5DIGIT

Right.  I have changed it as such.  The "oc-algo" production
rule suffered from the same fate; I have fixed that as well.
All these changes will show up in the next revision.

Thanks again.

- vijay