-----Original Message-----
From: Rosen, Brian [mailto:Brian.Rosen at neustar.biz]
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 11:42 AM
To: Paul Kyzivat; Brian Rosen
Cc: sipping
Subject: RE: [Sipping] Comments on draft-niemi-sipping-event-throttle-06
Ah, I get it.
Hmmm. Okay, the requirement is some way to catch small changes.
So, maybe we need a series of filters. A min rate is so much simpler
than that :)
Brian
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:pkyzivat at cisco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 10:04 AM
To: Brian Rosen
Cc: Rosen, Brian; 'sipping'
Subject: Re: [Sipping] Comments on
draft-niemi-sipping-event-throttle-06
Brian Rosen wrote:
No, it's not a keep alive.
If the target moves by less than 10 meters, it moves, but we don't
know.
We
need to know. The "at least 10 meters, no more than 10 updates/sec"
is
all
a rate limit. If the target moves a little, slowly, we get slow
updates.
But if the target doesn't move at all (to the limits of its ability to
detect) then you don't need an update??? Its been my impression from
this discussion that you were requesting unconditional notifications
of
location at some minimum frequency.
Its significant for the large population of devices that have a fixed
location.
Paul
Brian
-----Original Message-----
From: sipping-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:sipping-bounces at ietf.org] On
Behalf
Of Paul Kyzivat
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 9:32 AM
To: Rosen, Brian
Cc: sipping
Subject: Re: [Sipping] Comments on
draft-niemi-sipping-event-throttle-
06
WHY is it necessary to get a notification of location even if the
location has not changed?
Is this just a keep-alive? If so, why not address the need for a
keep-alive instead of imposing a requirement for location?
Keep-alives can be handled via session timer.
Paul
Rosen, Brian wrote:
It was suggested in geopriv that -throttle be used to control the
rate
at which notifications are sent when a watcher is tracking a
moving
target. This may be a reasonable way to do it, but I have two
observations about the current throttle draft relative to use with
location.
First, we need a minimum rate (or maximum time) for notifications.
In
location, we may wish to have a rate limit that is something like
"send
me an update when the target has moved at least 10 meters, but
don't
send more than 10 updates per second. Also, if the target hasn't
moved
more than 10 meters in a second, send me an update anyway". This
implies a maximum time as well as a minimum time for the throttle.
I'm
not sure if there are other uses for a maximum time, but we would
need
one for location.
Secondly, I observe that there are two ways to control event
notification. One way is expressed in the current draft, which is
a
minimum time in seconds between notifications. Another way to
express
rate is an average over a time period. The former is an
instantaneous
limit, the latter is a longer term average. For this purpose, I
think
a
simple running average would be good enough, so we would not need
to
keep much history state. I think most applications are better
served
by
averaging rather than instantaneous limits.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use sip-implementors at cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sip at ietf.org 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 at cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sip at ietf.org 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 at cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sip at ietf.org for new developments of core SIP