Re: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.5

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Fri, 06 December 2013 21:57 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E95B1AE02E for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 13:57:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.036
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.036 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7YsInZ2iTp6r for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 13:57:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shaman.nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C6CA1ADE87 for <dime@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 13:57:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.1.29] (cpe-173-172-146-58.tx.res.rr.com [173.172.146.58]) (authenticated bits=0) by shaman.nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id rB6LvUdq032415 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 6 Dec 2013 15:57:31 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1822\))
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D90006681519DD6B@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 15:57:30 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <39FA9478-3430-49F4-AB06-B83AA8129960@nostrum.com>
References: <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D90006681519DD6B@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net>
To: "Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)" <ulrich.wiehe@nsn.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1822)
Received-SPF: pass (shaman.nostrum.com: 173.172.146.58 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Cc: "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.5
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime/>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2013 21:57:37 -0000

On Dec 6, 2013, at 8:39 AM, Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich) <ulrich.wiehe@nsn.com> wrote:

> here is another comment to 4.5:
>  
> 3. It may be worth to clarify the meaning of a validity duration of 0 seconds. In my understanding it does not mean that the encapsulating OC-OLR is invalid. It is valid (and therefore replaces any previous OLR with the same report-type), but it immediately expires and hence is a way to signal “end of overload”.
> 

That's effectively the same thing as invalidating any pre-existing OLR.  I don't think we need the text to jump through hoops to try to make that invalidation sound like a side effect. (And I note that this approach is common in other protocols, e.g. SIP registrations and subscriptions.)