Re: Comments on draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-eventmess-04.txt

Hi -

> From: "Sumanth Channabasappa" <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 2:58 PM
> Subject: RE: [ipcdn] Comments on draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-eventmess-04.txt
...
> I haven't received any comments on the clarifications requested (dated
> 10/07, enclosed in this email). Can I assume acceptance (status quo) on
> #1 and #2? 

You must have missed my response from two months ago:

|From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
|Randy Presuhn
|Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 3:59 PM
|To: [email protected]
|Subject: Re: [ipcdn] Comments on draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-eventmess-04.txt
|
|Hi -
|
|> From: "Sumanth Channabasappa" <[email protected]>
|> To: "Jean-Francois Mule" <[email protected]>; "Nakanishi 
|> Greg-MGI8179" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
|> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 11:46 AM
|> Subject: RE: [ipcdn] Comments on 
|> draft-ietf-ipcdn-pktc-eventmess-04.txt
|...
|> 8) pktcDevEvThrottleAdminStatus
|> - The description makes mention of throttling events using SNMP and 
|> Syslog.  What about the local log?  Are events written to the local 
|> log not subject to throttling?
|...
|
|I'd suggest that if we don't leave it up to the implementation, that it would
|be best for throttling to affect all destinations equally.  Swamped logs are
|the same kind of problem, whether on the local system or a remote one.
|
|Randy

The code issuing a notification, which is where the DESCRIPTION clause
would lead implementors to put the throttling logic, would in a reasonably
modular environment have no knowledge of whether it is going to a local
log, delivery over some protocol, or whatever.

Randy