Subject: [Sipping] Comments on draft-rosenberg-sipping-overload-reqs-02.txt

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 21:21:06 +0200

Hi,

a few comments on draft-rosenberg-sipping-overload-reqs-02.txt

Note that, per our discussions in Montreal, this draft will become a
SIPPING WG item shortly.

Regarding the newly added Simulation Model, the first paragraph of
Section 6 explains its purpose: "analyze the problem and compare solutions".

I would like to see a clearer explanation about why it is there. Do we
want folks specifying different mechanisms that meet these requirements
to test them in such environment so that the SIPPING WG chooses to
standardize the best one? Or, do we think the SIPPING WG will be working
on a solution that will be fine tuned using the model? Or, once we have
specified a mechanism that meets those requirements, do we want
implementers to test different algorithms in order to see which one is
better?

Regarding the model itself, once a home proxy gets a message, it could
send it to another home proxy, which in turn would send it to an edge
proxy. This way, the model would also be useful to understand the home
proxy to home proxy interface, where a relatively small number of nodes
exchange messages between them. In the actual model, that interface does
not exist.

References:

even though this will be an informational RFC, it can have normative
references. Normative references are those that need to be understood by
the reader in order to understand the specification. So, at least RFC
3261 needs to be a normative references.

Nits:

Page 3:

   s/agencies/agents/

   Expand I/O

Page 4:

s/to delayed or be lost/to be delayed or lost/

Cheers,

Gonzalo

_______________________________________________
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: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 13:17:02 -0500

Thanks for your comments Gonzalo. Responses inline.

Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:

> standardize the best one?

It was meant to facilitate that kind of comparison informally, yes. It 
was also meant to allow non-SIP folks, but those who are familiar with 
congestion control, to simulate the problem and help with solutions. 
Like I said, I got the request at the last two meetings (from Allison in 
particular, though echoed by others) to add this.

> Or, do we think the SIPPING WG will be working

The model is meant for the working group to use, not implementors.

> exchange messages between them. In the actual model, that interface does

OK, good point. I will add that in the next revision.

> 3261 needs to be a normative references.

Well, I think that is still a matter of debate. I remain firmly in the 
camp that says informational documents don't have normative references.

> s/to delayed or be lost/to be delayed or lost/

Fixed.

Thanks,
Jonathan R.
-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                   600 Lanidex Plaza
Cisco Fellow                                   Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
Cisco Systems
[email-masked]                              FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                         PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.cisco.com