Re: [Dime] Issue#32 status

agreed

On 2/28/14 9:37 AM, Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich) wrote:
> I think so; not required, not desired.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Jouni Korhonen [mailto:jouni.nospam@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 4:30 PM
> To: Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)
> Cc: dime@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Dime] Issue#32 status
>
>
> Going back in history..
>
> On Feb 19, 2014, at 5:33 PM, "Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)" <ulrich.wiehe@nsn.com> wrote:
>
>> #32: Sequence-Number Time-Stamp values within OC-OLR
>>  
>> I understand that we agreed the following principles:
>>  
>> Sequence-Number is of type Time, however the value need not correspond to the point in time of generation.
>>  
>> When generated, a new sequence number must be  greater than any sequence number previously generated by the same node (including over a reboot of that node)
>>  
>> When received, a sequence number is used to detect outdates/replays/freshness.
>>  
>> Sequence numbers of expired OLRs MUST NOT be remembered by reacting nodes.
>>  
>>  
>> I did not understand the requirement for globally uniqueness as introduced by Jouni.
>> Can Jouni please explain.
> Originated from here:
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime/current/msg06600.html
>
> So requiring global uniqueness is not desired anymore? 
>
> - Jouni
>
>
>
>>  
>> Ulrich
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> _______________________________________________
>> DiME mailing list
>> DiME@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> DiME@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
>