IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.3

"Nirav Salot (nsalot)" <nsalot@cisco.com> Sat, 07 December 2013 08:27 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 175641A1F71 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Dec 2013 00:27:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.502
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, 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 jTzONsJ4Xsrb for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Dec 2013 00:26:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-6.cisco.com (alln-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.142.93]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89D7B1ADF8A for <dime@ietf.org>; Sat, 7 Dec 2013 00:26:58 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2217; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1386404814; x=1387614414; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=JpxDAIR7cN6N0QnsbVjfLKOCuDERe0bRFUUAsKBrWjU=; b=RHOgVnap5lvI87IdUIcLZWE+irQblqX6SpoGeFJtGHi0uk4M0LRMk2Pd DNyUSkqFapMlncVp+VSNROg6EUPG2g2CKzGsTW8Uj8xF4Li9s5GeWBfnF y10NtXbsuc0zcgfd1tnERyqis+5f/jvDL+Rt9zKI4zmYE7Uk9SLRp0tiY g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhwFAHXaolKtJXG8/2dsb2JhbABZgwc4U7kTgRoWdIIlAQEBBAEBATc0CwwEAgEIEQQBAQsUCQcnCxQJCAEBBA4FCId6DcBCEwSOXzEHBoMagRMDqieDKYIq
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,845,1378857600"; d="scan'208";a="5025409"
Received: from rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com ([173.37.113.188]) by alln-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Dec 2013 08:26:54 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x13.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x13.cisco.com [173.37.183.87]) by rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rB78QsJO006503 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Sat, 7 Dec 2013 08:26:54 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([169.254.15.250]) by xhc-rcd-x13.cisco.com ([173.37.183.87]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Sat, 7 Dec 2013 02:26:54 -0600
From: "Nirav Salot (nsalot)" <nsalot@cisco.com>
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, "Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)" <ulrich.wiehe@nsn.com>
Thread-Topic: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.3
Thread-Index: Ac7xzgT7drC0NV4iSVSEGFHx9aP+WQA0gLQAAAa3TAAAER7hgAAJZ7uQ
Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2013 08:26:53 +0000
Message-ID: <A9CA33BB78081F478946E4F34BF9AAA014D29713@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>
In-Reply-To: <FBC2AC60-A7A8-4D71-8B0F-ADECC10A1311@nostrum.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.21.82.104]
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: Sat, 07 Dec 2013 08:27:00 -0000

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email