IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dime] [dime] #45: Why is a validity duration of 0 disallowed?

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Mon, 24 February 2014 22:43 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 610DC1A0311 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 14:43:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.447
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.447 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547] 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 VRhObfhrH8tT for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 14:43:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47E911A030A for <dime@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 14:43:06 -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 nostrum.com (8.14.8/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s1OMh3Es088048 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:43:05 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-173-172-146-58.tx.res.rr.com [173.172.146.58] claimed to be [10.0.1.29]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\))
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <530BBA98.9080903@usdonovans.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:43:03 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3EDA7999-937A-434C-B94A-A41C1C6EF0EE@nostrum.com>
References: <057.2153d3a0ed57933cb4ec7468d82db1d9@trac.tools.ietf.org> <E194C2E18676714DACA9C3A2516265D2026649BC@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <087A34937E64E74E848732CFF8354B9209774896@ESESSMB101.ericsson.se> <E194C2E18676714DACA9C3A2516265D2026649F8@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-luc! ent.com> <52FCB76E.6020202@usdonovans.com> <E194C2E18676714DACA9C3A2516265D2026686E4@FR712WXCHMBA12.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <087A34937E64E74E848732CFF8354B9209775207@ESESSMB101.ericsson.se> <27861_1392393201_52FE3BF1_27861_1566_1_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E4A3E77@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <83E6BED2-035D-4C26-A1AF-9F833B1070C5@nostrum.com> <5302365A.8080408@usdonovans.com> <E194C2E18676714DA! CA9C3A2516265D2026697BC@FR712WXCHMBA12.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <27433_1392660486_53025006_27433_1223_1_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E4AB48A@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <579DC2BE-CC3C-43E6-819C-ADB7B1182CED@nostrum.com> <530BBA98.9080903@usdonovans.com>
To: Steve Donovan <srdonovan@usdonovans.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dime/APt5MZAba7qdR0cUE3FlfimFErw
Cc: "dime@ietf.org list" <dime@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] [dime] #45: Why is a validity duration of 0 disallowed?
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: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 22:43:07 -0000

On Feb 24, 2014, at 3:33 PM, Steve Donovan <srdonovan@usdonovans.com> wrote:

> I think the proposal here is the following:
> 
> A reporting node communicates that an overload report is no longer valid by sending an OLR with a Validity-Period AVP with a value of zero.  This is the only way for a reporting node to indicate that an overload report is no longer valid.  For instance, setting the reduction-percentage to zero does not make the overload report invalid.  
> 
> Do we have agreement on this?

Agreed.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email