Re: [Dime] draft-ietf-dime-ovli-01 comment #3

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Tue, 03 December 2013 21:49 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 8D7A11ADEBF for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 13:49:00 -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 0lFtpEqTcNKZ for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 13:48:59 -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 8B8B51A8032 for <dime@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 13:48:59 -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 rB3LmlPr038868 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 3 Dec 2013 15:48:48 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1822\))
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <CC4B7FD8-2E9F-42B5-B05F-6AF0B8DC6739@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 15:48:47 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3EA2D87D-9E72-47ED-B079-D24526E5C4FE@nostrum.com>
References: <CC4B7FD8-2E9F-42B5-B05F-6AF0B8DC6739@gmail.com>
To: Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.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 list" <dime@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] draft-ietf-dime-ovli-01 comment #3
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: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 21:49:00 -0000

I concur with adding it back. We might consider naming it something more descriptive; that is, it's more important that it's the "loss" algorithm than that it's the default algorithm.

On Dec 2, 2013, at 6:27 AM, Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>; wrote:

> 
> I brought back the initial features flag for the default abatement
> algorithm. It was pointed out to me that just the absence of the
> OC-Feature-Vector AVP is not adequate enough in a case multiple
> supported abatement algorithms get announced and something specific
> is needed to be said about the default algorithm (like the other end
> specifically does not want to use it).
> 
> - Jouni
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> DiME@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime