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

From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2013 14:32:57 -0500

Folks: As part of the 2nd WGLC review done by Janet, there are 2
questions that should benefit from some discussion.  These need
to be closed so we can move the draft ahead to IESG.

Please see [1] for these questions.  Some feedback would be
appreciated.

[1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip-overload/current/msg00925.html

Thanks,

- 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/

---

From: Volker Hilt <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 15:54:07 +0200

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.

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

Thanks,

Volker (as individual)