[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Comments on draft-niemi-sipping-event-throttle



I agree with Alan's "support"/"work should progress", and with his suggestion that the parameter names might be clearer as rate-max, rate-min, and rate-average. I would support moving all normative text out of Section 3 as Alan suggested, as well.

I'm also interested in Alan's question about the interaction between limitations on the rate of notifications and limitations on the size of notifications - but I hope that this question doesn't delay progressing the work.

Thanks,

Spencer


Here are a few comments on this draft.

Overall, I support this mechanism and think the work should progress.

While I understand the use and motivation for each of the parameters throttle, force, and average, I'm not thrilled with the names. Force was decidedly nonintuitive to me ("Use the force, Luke"), and the three definitely don't go together as a cohesive set. Something like rate-max, rate-min, and rate-average is much clearer. However, if there is deployment and running code, then this is a good reason not to rename parameters. At the very least, the abstract needs to be expanded to explain what these parameters do instead of just listing them.

In dealing with very large resource list-type presence subscriptions, we have found the need to not only limit the rate of notifications but also the size of the batches, i.e. the number of bodies present in a single NOTIFY. This is described in http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-johnston-sipping-batch-notify which uses a very similar mechanism. I wonder if the authors could comment on this as a complementary mechanism. I wonder if this throttling mechanism on its own could actually make this situation worse - i.e. fewer NOTIFYs are sent, but each NOTIFY is bigger.

One other comment on organization is to perhaps make a cleaner split between normative and non-normative text. Most of Section 3 seems to be non-normative although 3.7 has normative language. Section 4 seems like it would be the logical place to begin normative language, perhaps including a statement about this.

This next comment is just a suggestion - not a criticism. Recently in my own drafts, I have been analyzing the normative language to make sure that it adequately covers expected behavior. One way of doing this is to extract only the normative language from a draft and read just that, and see if the mechanism is fully specified. I have found a number of examples of missing and conflicting normative language in doing this. I haven't yet done this to this draft but suspect that it could use this analysis since it has nearly 10 pages of normative text.

One nit:  In the Abstract, it should be "force" not "forge".

Thanks,
Alan

_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use sip-implementors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for questions on current sip
Use sip@xxxxxxxx for new developments of core SIP



_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use sip-implementors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for questions on current sip
Use sip@xxxxxxxx for new developments of core SIP

[IETF Announce]     [IETF Discussion]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Photo]     [Yosemite News]    [Yosemite Photos]    [Free Online Dating]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Big List of Linux Books]

Add to Google Powered by Linux