Subject: [sip-overload] draft-ietf-soc-overload-rate-control-04.txt

From: "Yu, James" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 22:29:31 +0000

Salvatore,

Please see the attachment for my comments.

I pasted the text to a word document to trace/show the proposed changes and comments.

Regards,

James

---

From: Janet P Gunn <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 15:34:28 -0400

James,

It is a little hard to respond in email when your comments are in a 
separate document, but here goes.

section 3.4
ID says:
"Note that the target SIP request rate is a max rate that may not be
   attained by the arrival rate at the client, and the server cannot
   assume that it will."

Your comment :
"Not clear what value this paragraph tries to add.  Is it saying that the 
client's arrival rate may be lower than the target SIP request rate?  "

Yes.

Suppose the server want to limit the total rate of arriving SIP messages 
to 100 / sec, and has 10 clients.  Each client has a high variance in its 
message rate, but together they are well above 100 messages per sec

If it sets the rate at 10 messages per second for each of the clients, it 
will almost certainly end up  with an overall average of less than 100 
messages per sec, because some clients will be in a "lull" while others 
are busy.  This is good from a throttling perspective, but, assuming 
messages are correlated with revenue, bad/wasteful from a revenue, or 
overall productivity perspective.  So the server might want to set the 
rate per client to 10 + delta, where delta is going to be very specific to 
operating environment.

---
In section  3.5.1, bottom of page 8
ID says:
"And the larger
   the difference between TAU1 and TAU2, the closer to the control is
   to strict priority."

You propose changing it to:
"And the larger
   the difference between TAU1 and TAU2, the closer  the control is
   to strict priority queuing." 

I agree with taking out the redundant "to".  But I disagree wit adding 
"queuing".  There is no queuing, priority or otherwise involved.

You could say:
"And the larger
   the difference between TAU1 and TAU2, the closer  the control is
   to strict priority treatment." 

where " strict priority treatment" would refer to the case where 
non-priority messages are restricted to a total (priority + non-priority) 
rate of 10 messages per second, but priority messages can continue to be 
sent as long as the total (priority + non-priority) rate is less than 12 
messages per second.

At least, I think that is what Eric and  Philip are trying to say.

Janet

This is a PRIVATE message. If you are not the intended recipient, please 
delete without copying and kindly advise us by e-mail of the mistake in 
delivery. NOTE: Regardless of content, this e-mail shall not operate to 
bind CSC to any order or other contract unless pursuant to explicit 
written agreement or government initiative expressly permitting the use of 
e-mail for such purpose.

From:   "Yu, James" <[email-masked]>
To:     "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, 
"[email-masked]" 
<[email-masked]>, 
"[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date:   06/28/2013 08:10 AM
Subject:        [sip-overload] draft-ietf-soc-overload-rate-control-04.txt
Sent by:        [email-masked]

Salvatore,

I pasted the text to a word document to trace/show the proposed changes 
and comments.
 
Regards,
 
James
 [attachment "comments on draft-ietf-soc-overload-rate-control-04.docx" 
deleted by Janet P Gunn/USA/CSC] 
_______________________________________________
sip-overload mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip-overload