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

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

Okay. Does that mean we should assign the issue to me in the tracker?

On Feb 10, 2014, at 10:06 AM, Jouni Korhonen <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 
> Ben,
> 
> Propose some text and we can see how it fits in.
> 
> - Jouni
> 
> 
> On Feb 10, 2014, at 5:53 PM, Ben Campbell <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Feb 10, 2014, at 5:12 AM, Jouni Korhonen <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> On Feb 7, 2014, at 11:54 PM, dime issue tracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> #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.)
>>> 
>>> Right. Avoiding two ways of ending overload condition was the reason.
>>> I am OK to have validity duration 0 as an additional method ending the
>>> overload condition based on the reasoning above.
>>> 
>> 
>> I would go further and make duration 0 the _preferred_ way, for two reasons:
>> 
>> 1) It's algorithm independent. (reduction-percentage of 0 is specific to algorithms that use reduction percentage.)
>> 
>> 2) Explicit signaling of the end of an overload condition becomes semantically identical to the expiration of an overload condition. This allows a simpler implementation.
>> 
>> 
>