[Dime] [dime] #46: Bad normative advice on not letting overload reports expire
"dime issue tracker" <trac+dime@trac.tools.ietf.org> Fri, 07 February 2014 21:59 UTC
Return-Path: <trac+dime@trac.tools.ietf.org>
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 609E71A0506 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 13:59:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.435
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.435 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535] autolearn=ham
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 GKTaWeY8wQtl for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 13:59:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from grenache.tools.ietf.org (grenache.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2::30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23AFF1A01C0 for <dime@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 13:59:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52863 helo=grenache.tools.ietf.org ident=www-data) by grenache.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <trac+dime@trac.tools.ietf.org>) id 1WBtSV-0001Sk-Bp; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 22:59:39 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: dime issue tracker <trac+dime@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Version: 0.12.3
Precedence: bulk
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
X-Mailer: Trac 0.12.3, by Edgewall Software
To: draft-docdt-dime-ovli@tools.ietf.org, ben@nostrum.com
X-Trac-Project: dime
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 21:59:39 -0000
X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dime/
X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dime/trac/ticket/46
Message-ID: <057.8b248d3cb5db23879c2730b80d4657d7@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 46
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-docdt-dime-ovli@tools.ietf.org, ben@nostrum.com, dime@ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac+dime@trac.tools.ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on grenache.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Resent-To: ben@nostrum.com, jouni.nospam@gmail.com, srdonovan@usdonovans.com
Cc: dime@ietf.org
Subject: [Dime] [dime] #46: Bad normative advice on not letting overload reports expire
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Reply-To: dime@ietf.org
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, 07 Feb 2014 21:59:46 -0000
#46: Bad normative advice on not letting overload reports expire Section 4.5 says " As a general guidance for implementations it is RECOMMENDED never to let any overload report to timeout." In my opinion, this is bad advice. If an overload report is close to expiring anyway, it's better to just let it expire than to generate a new report to end the condition. Furthermore, this falls into the category of normative language that does not effect interoperability. That is forbidden by RFC 2119, except for situations where not following it does significant harm. If we believe letting reports expire does significant harm, we should explain why. -- -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Reporter: | Owner: draft-docdt-dime- ben@nostrum.com | ovli@tools.ietf.org Type: defect | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: Component: draft- | Version: 1.0 docdt-dime-ovli | Keywords: Severity: Active WG | Document | -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dime/trac/ticket/46> dime <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dime/>
- [Dime] [dime] #46: Bad normative advice on not le… dime issue tracker
- Re: [Dime] [dime] #46: Bad normative advice on no… Jouni Korhonen
- Re: [Dime] [dime] #46: Bad normative advice on no… Ben Campbell
- Re: [Dime] [dime] #46: Bad normative advice on no… Nirav Salot (nsalot)
- Re: [Dime] [dime] #46: Bad normative advice on no… Maria Cruz Bartolome
- Re: [Dime] [dime] #46: Bad normative advice on no… Jouni Korhonen
- Re: [Dime] [dime] #46: Bad normative advice on no… TROTTIN, JEAN-JACQUES (JEAN-JACQUES)
- Re: [Dime] [dime] #46: Bad normative advice on no… Steve Donovan
- Re: [Dime] [dime] #46: Bad normative advice on no… Steve Donovan
- Re: [Dime] [dime] #46: Bad normative advice on no… Jouni Korhonen
- Re: [Dime] [dime] #46: Bad normative advice on no… lionel.morand
- Re: [Dime] [dime] #46: Bad normative advice on no… Maria Cruz Bartolome
- Re: [Dime] [dime] #46: Bad normative advice on no… Ben Campbell
- Re: [Dime] [dime] #46: Bad normative advice on no… DOLLY, MARTIN C
- Re: [Dime] [dime] #46: Bad normative advice on no… Ben Campbell
- Re: [Dime] [dime] #46: Bad normative advice on no… Steve Donovan
- Re: [Dime] [dime] #46: Bad normative advice on no… Jouni Korhonen
- Re: [Dime] [dime] #46 (draft-docdt-dime-ovli): Ba… dime issue tracker
- Re: [Dime] [dime] #46 (draft-docdt-dime-ovli): Ba… dime issue tracker
- Re: [Dime] [dime] #46 (draft-docdt-dime-ovli): Ba… Steve Donovan
- Re: [Dime] [dime] #46 (draft-docdt-dime-ovli): Ba… Ben Campbell
- Re: [Dime] [dime] #46 (draft-ietf-dime-ovli): Bad… dime issue tracker