IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.3

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Fri, 06 December 2013 21:50 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 122051AE105 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 13:50:02 -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 vDuZLFj9savx for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 13:50:00 -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 BBF1D1AE0FA for <dime@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 13:50:00 -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 rB6LnnCa031988 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 6 Dec 2013 15:49:50 -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: <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D90006681519DD2A@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net>
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2013 15:49:49 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <FBC2AC60-A7A8-4D71-8B0F-ADECC10A1311@nostrum.com>
References: <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D90006681519DB1B@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net> <AA10DFBD-CAC9-4B7B-8876-A4F28E63D83F@gmail.com> <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D90006681519DD2A@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net>
To: "Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)" <ulrich.wiehe@nsn.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" <dime@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.3
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: Fri, 06 Dec 2013 21:50:02 -0000

On Dec 6, 2013, at 7:39 AM, Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich) <ulrich.wiehe@nsn.com> wrote:

>> 
>> 2. TimeStamp has been replaced with Sequence-Number. This has the negative impact that reacting nodes must calculate the expiration time base on OLR-reception time. OLR reception time and OLR creation time  may be significantly different.
>> I don't see any reason in favour of Sequence-Number. Proposal is to replace Sequence-Number with TimeStamp.
> 
> I agree but you need to convince the others as well who favoured sequence number.

I don't think it was so much that we didn't want it to be a timestamp as we didn't want to mandate the implementation. We need to make sure the number changes between different versions. A time stamp is one way to do that. A sequence number (or version number) is another.

As I mentioned in a separate thread, we at list need to describe the expected properties. For example, the scope-of-uniqueness, whether we expect the number to always increase or just be different, etc. It's not clear to me that any association with wall clock time is one of those needed properties, even though a time stamp might be a perfectly reasonable way to achieve the other needed properties.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email