Re: [Dime] OVLI: OC-Validity-Duration

Jouni,

I think the best way to manage "something unpredictable" is not to provide an estimation (on an unpredictable event) from the server.
If you really think that scheduled cleanups are helpful, this could always be considered in the client, with a default value, that does not need to be sent from the reporting node.

Regards
/MCrzu

-----Original Message-----
From: Jouni Korhonen [mailto:jouni.nospam@gmail.com] 
Sent: jueves, 12 de diciembre de 2013 9:39
To: Maria Cruz Bartolome
Cc: dime@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dime] OVLI: OC-Validity-Duration

Hi,

I kind of like scheduled cleanups.. just to make sure there is no
stuff left hanging around when something unpredictable happens in
the network system.

Again, I would say this is a wrong place to "optimize".

- Jouni

On Dec 12, 2013, at 9:53 AM, Maria Cruz Bartolome <maria.cruz.bartolome@ericsson.com> wrote:

> Dear all,
>  
> I would like to reconsider the real need for the OC-Validity-Duration AVP to be included into overload report.
> Overload mechanism is being design with a principle in mind: as soon as reporting node determines a reacting node overload behavior should change, reporting node sends a fresh overload report to this reacting node.
> Therefore, latest overload report received will be always applicable until a new report is received, and then I do not see the value, but just complexity, of including a Duration in the report.
>  
> Let me know your views.
> Best regards
> /MCruz
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> DiME@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime