Subject: Re: [Sipping] comments on throttle-01

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 15:02:48 -0600

Eric Burger wrote:

>...I still don't get the value of a (future) RFC on the topic.  Why
>not just refer people to a Buffer Theory textbook and be done with it?
>There is no protocol stuff going on in here, really.
>  
>

I would argue that the protocol element to this -- and it is an 
important one -- is the ability for a subscriber to request throttling. 
The draft also needs to precisely describe what these throttle requests 
mean, which is where a bulk of the current text comes from -- but there 
is a distinct protocol element to it.

During the creation of the document that is now RFC3265, there was a 
distinct belief that, in certain circumstances, the subscriber should 
have the ability to request throttling of notification (see section 
4.4.3, for example). Back in Vienna, by accepting the throttling 
requirements, the working group made a decision to define a 
cross-package throttling mechanism.

I think Aki's draft is a really good basis for moving this work forward. 
Given the text in the current document, I have a clear picture of how I 
would sit down and implement a server that supports this extension.

As to the open issue, I think this draft should leave out suggestions of 
recommended throttle intervals, as they will vary not just from package 
to package, but from application to application.

As this document necessarily extends RFC3265, I would personally like to 
see this work handed off to the SIP working group for completion there.

/a

_______________________________________________
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: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 18:23:37 -0500

My point is that for there to be any meaningful throttling, it has to be on
a per-package basis.  Always.

The things that sound like they make sense, like rate of messages, {average,
peak} bandwidth, etc., all have counter-examples that don't make sense for a
given package.

I could see this as a "template extension" for 3265.  In particular, as one
describes subscriber and notifier behavior, one MUST describe throttling.

Then again, doesn't 3265 say that already?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Roach [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 4:03 PM
> To: Eric Burger
> Cc: Aki Niemi; SIPPING WG
> Subject: Re: [Sipping] comments on throttle-01
> 
> 
> Eric Burger wrote:
>