IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"dime issue tracker" <trac+dime@trac.tools.ietf.org> Fri, 07 February 2014 21:54 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 2876F1A04B2 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 13:54:45 -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 VuU_-FvE8CKw for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 13:54:43 -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 9852B1A01C0 for <dime@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 13:54:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52557 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 1WBtNg-00043u-L9; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 22:54:40 +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 21:54:40 -0000
X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dime/
X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dime/trac/ticket/45
Message-ID: <057.2153d3a0ed57933cb4ec7468d82db1d9@trac.tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 45
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] #45: Why is a validity duration of 0 disallowed?
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 21:54:45 -0000

#45: Why is a validity duration of 0 disallowed?

 Section 4.5 disallows a validity duration of zero. Why do we want to
 disallow that? It would allow a quick way of ending any existing overload
 condition without worrying about the semantics of the abatement algorithm.
 (We currently use a reduction percentage of zero to end an overload
 condition--but that's specific to the loss algorithm and might not make
 sense for all future ones.)

 Note that setting an expiration time to zero is the standard way of
 removing state in several other protocols (e.g. SIP).

-- 
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
 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/45>
dime <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dime/>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email