IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dime] Issue#32 status

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Mon, 24 February 2014 23:00 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 7F6931A01B7 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 15:00:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.447
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.447 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547] 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 PwVW_J-pnxD9 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 15:00:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 985871A01BB for <dime@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 15:00:20 -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 nostrum.com (8.14.8/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s1ON0Iln088831 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 24 Feb 2014 17:00:19 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-173-172-146-58.tx.res.rr.com [173.172.146.58] claimed to be [10.0.1.29]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\))
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <530BAC7C.7080106@usdonovans.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 17:00:17 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E2257532-C0EE-4D2D-8305-DED5828B4FCC@nostrum.com>
References: <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D9000668151B3D63@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net> <530BAC7C.7080106@usdonovans.com>
To: Steve Donovan <srdonovan@usdonovans.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dime/Ot4EhPRPeEQua00QPImC6YNnc8E
Cc: "dime@ietf.org list" <dime@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] Issue#32 status
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, 24 Feb 2014 23:00:22 -0000

+ 1, except as noted:

On Feb 24, 2014, at 2:33 PM, Steve Donovan <srdonovan@usdonovans.com> wrote:

> Ulrich,
> 
> Would you agree to the following to replace the first two statements:
> 
> Sequence number is of type Unsigned64.
> 
> When generated, a new sequence number must be greater than the sequence number contained in the active overload report to which it applies (including over reboot of that node).  Note: this allows sequence numbers to start at 1 for any occurrence of overload at a reporting node.  This, I think, allows us to ignore wraparound issues as wraparound will never happen.  Unless we are worried about a server staying in overload for billions of years (assuming reports with a ten minute validity period refreshed every five minutes).

s/ any occurrence of overload / the initial occurrence of an overload condition

> 
> The other two statements are good.
> 
> Steve

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email