Re: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.3
"Nirav Salot (nsalot)" <nsalot@cisco.com> Mon, 09 December 2013 12:43 UTC
Return-Path: <nsalot@cisco.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 B09291AE2AB for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 04:43:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.502
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 Xlzea2jWpPQ8 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 04:43:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86A761AE2A2 for <dime@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 04:43:38 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4663; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1386593014; x=1387802614; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=El5gPTbXhay4JcH+M9/epd1qhrHd/F4RbmeKCiMELKE=; b=FrbG9FFFhqjnVd1zmxy7ZaEV30gJLPnPioSsNK9YHM8SS2uWHH1L/mvq ufVH9ejoA79ar8aVq6easDz7pGFRUUKsM8xkiiq5Dy9m4I9k0qf4X5wVo 2yW+S0pUxYrG2hjoC73pV21en4QFeyvcUd/LxgLAN9JGNRqz5+vtYvBO4 s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgUFACi6pVKtJV2b/2dsb2JhbABZgwc4U7kUgS4WdIIlAQEBAwEBAQE3NAsFBwQCAQgRBAEBCxQJBycLFAkIAgQBDQUIh3QGDcElEwSOXzEHBoMagRMDqieDKYIq
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,857,1378857600"; d="scan'208";a="290284441"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Dec 2013 12:43:33 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com [173.37.183.81]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rB9ChXB5029108 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 9 Dec 2013 12:43:33 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([169.254.15.250]) by xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com ([173.37.183.81]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 06:43:33 -0600
From: "Nirav Salot (nsalot)" <nsalot@cisco.com>
To: "Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)" <ulrich.wiehe@nsn.com>, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Thread-Topic: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.3
Thread-Index: Ac7xzgT7drC0NV4iSVSEGFHx9aP+WQA0gLQAAAa3TAAAER7hgAAJZ7uQAHabNIAACQPf4A==
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 12:43:33 +0000
Message-ID: <A9CA33BB78081F478946E4F34BF9AAA014D2D548@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
References: <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D90006681519DB1B@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net> <AA10DFBD-CAC9-4B7B-8876-A4F28E63D83F@gmail.com> <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D90006681519DD2A@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net> <FBC2AC60-A7A8-4D71-8B0F-ADECC10A1311@nostrum.com> <A9CA33BB78081F478946E4F34BF9AAA014D29713@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D90006681519DF8A@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net>
In-Reply-To: <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D90006681519DF8A@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.65.38.70]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
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: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 12:43:40 -0000
Ulrich, > it is also an important part that the reacting node calculates the expiry time of an OLR based on the included timestamp and duration and not based on the reception time and the included duration. I do not agree that this is important. I do not see any issue if the reacting node starts the timer equal to Validity-Period on reception of the message containing a fresh OC-OLR. I agree that this means each reacting node will run this timer for different duration since each of them will start the timer of the same value but starting from the time when they received OC-OLR. But this is not an issue since Validity-Period is anyway a guestimate and it would provide a natural ramp up effect (to avoid message storm at the reporting node) if each of the reacting node stops the throttling at different time. > It is much simpler for reporting nodes to include a pre-calculated OLR into the answer rather than to adjust the validity-duration in the OLR in dependency of the time when the OLR is included into the answer. I agree. The reporting node should not be required to adjust Validity-Period while sending OC-OLR to different reacting nodes. I do not see any need to do so based on my explanation above. Regards, Nirav. -----Original Message----- From: Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich) [mailto:ulrich.wiehe@nsn.com] Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 4:25 PM To: Nirav Salot (nsalot); Ben Campbell Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.3 Nirav, it is also an important part that the reacting node calculates the expiry time of an OLR based on the included timestamp and duration and not based on the reception time and the included duration. It is much simpler for reporting nodes to include a pre-calculated OLR into the answer rather than to adjust the validity-duration in the OLR in dependency of the time when the OLR is included into the answer. The reporting node may want the OLR to be valid starting from creation time (t0) for the validity-duration (d), i.e. until t0+d independent from the point in time (t0, t0+1,...,t0+d-1) when the OLR is sent. Ulrich -----Original Message----- From: ext Nirav Salot (nsalot) [mailto:nsalot@cisco.com] Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2013 9:27 AM To: Ben Campbell; Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich) Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.3 In my view, from the reacting point of view, Timestamp and Sequence-Number are both the same since it is just a number defining the uniqueness/version-Id of the OC-OLR. e.g. we can define Sequence-Number and the reporting node can use Timestamp to populate the same. The most important part is that the reacting node is not supposed to use this parameter for anything but finding out the newness/version-ID of the report. Beyond that, from the reporting node's point of view, I am fine to use Sequence-Number or Timestamp. Regards, Nirav. -----Original Message----- From: DiME [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ben Campbell Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2013 3:20 AM To: Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich) Cc: dime@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.3 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. _______________________________________________ DiME mailing list DiME@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
- Re: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.3 Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)
- [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.3 Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.3 Jouni Korhonen
- Re: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.3 Ben Campbell
- Re: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.3 Nirav Salot (nsalot)
- Re: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.3 Jouni Korhonen
- Re: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.3 Jouni Korhonen
- Re: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.3 Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.3 Shishufeng (Susan)
- [Dime] Conclusion for Sequence Numbers - was Re: … Jouni Korhonen
- Re: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.3 Nirav Salot (nsalot)
- Re: [Dime] Conclusion for Sequence Numbers - was … Steve Donovan
- Re: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.3 Ben Campbell
- Re: [Dime] Conclusion for Sequence Numbers - was … Ben Campbell
- Re: [Dime] Conclusion for Sequence Numbers - was … Jouni Korhonen
- Re: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.3 Maria Cruz Bartolome
- Re: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.3 Jouni Korhonen
- Re: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.3 Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [Dime] Conclusion for Sequence Numbers - was … Steve Donovan
- Re: [Dime] Conclusion for Sequence Numbers - was … Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [Dime] Conclusion for Sequence Numbers - was … Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [Dime] Conclusion for Sequence Numbers - was … Ben Campbell
- Re: [Dime] Conclusion for Sequence Numbers - was … Jouni Korhonen
- Re: [Dime] Conclusion for Sequence Numbers - was … Ben Campbell
- Re: [Dime] Conclusion for Sequence Numbers - was … Jouni Korhonen
- Re: [Dime] Conclusion for Sequence Numbers - was … Ben Campbell
- Re: [Dime] Conclusion for Sequence Numbers - was … Jouni Korhonen
- Re: [Dime] Conclusion for Sequence Numbers - was … Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [Dime] Conclusion for Sequence Numbers - was … Jouni
- Re: [Dime] Conclusion for Sequence Numbers - was … Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [Dime] Conclusion for Sequence Numbers - was … Jouni
- Re: [Dime] Conclusion for Sequence Numbers - was … Steve Donovan
- Re: [Dime] Conclusion for Sequence Numbers - was … Steve Donovan
- Re: [Dime] Conclusion for Sequence Numbers - was … Nirav Salot (nsalot)
- Re: [Dime] Conclusion for Sequence Numbers - was … Jouni Korhonen
- Re: [Dime] Conclusion for Sequence Numbers - was … Maria Cruz Bartolome
- Re: [Dime] Conclusion for Sequence Numbers - was … Jouni Korhonen
- Re: [Dime] Conclusion for Sequence Numbers - was … Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [Dime] Conclusion for Sequence Numbers - was … Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [Dime] Conclusion for Sequence Numbers - was … Jouni Korhonen
- Re: [Dime] Conclusion for Sequence Numbers - was … Jouni Korhonen
- Re: [Dime] Conclusion for Sequence Numbers - was … Nirav Salot (nsalot)
- Re: [Dime] Conclusion for Sequence Numbers - was … Steve Donovan
- Re: [Dime] Conclusion for Sequence Numbers - was … Steve Donovan
- Re: [Dime] Conclusion for Sequence Numbers - was … Steve Donovan
- Re: [Dime] Conclusion for Sequence Numbers - was … Steve Donovan
- Re: [Dime] Conclusion for Sequence Numbers - was … Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [Dime] Conclusion for Sequence Numbers - was … Nirav Salot (nsalot)
- Re: [Dime] Conclusion for Sequence Numbers - was … Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [Dime] Conclusion for Sequence Numbers - was … Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [Dime] Conclusion for Sequence Numbers - was … Steve Donovan
- Re: [Dime] Conclusion for Sequence Numbers - was … Steve Donovan
- Re: [Dime] Conclusion for Sequence Numbers - was … Nirav Salot (nsalot)
- Re: [Dime] Conclusion for Sequence Numbers - was … Steve Donovan
- Re: [Dime] Conclusion for Sequence Numbers - was … Nirav Salot (nsalot)