IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dime] Issue#30 status

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Wed, 26 February 2014 15:11 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 7C8D01A0678 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 07:11:32 -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 zQpkbwAWDeEa for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 07:11:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9CB31A066E for <dime@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 07:10:56 -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 s1QFArod011288 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 26 Feb 2014 09:10:54 -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="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D9000668151B4A31@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 09:10:51 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <CF100654-0865-4848-87B3-CBBAF919B4BB@nostrum.com>
References: <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D9000668151B3BCF@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net> <B5E91287-7462-4531-9F48-C5F124C19BE3@gmail.com> <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D9000668151B3C7A@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net> <530BA7B6.9020405@usdonovans.com> <8E282417-E73C-4896-BDC0-37B24E709D4B@nostrum.com> <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D9000668151B48BB@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net> <530DDF7B.6070801@usdonovans.com> <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D9000668151B4A05@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net> <530DE76A.1030305@usdonovans.com> <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D9000668151B4A31@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net>
To: "Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)" <ulrich.wiehe@nsn.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dime/R-FR99kcpMpSDwa7phbWVnh8irE
Cc: "dime@ietf.org list" <dime@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] Issue#30 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: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 15:11:32 -0000

On Feb 26, 2014, at 7:27 AM, Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich) <ulrich.wiehe@nsn.com> wrote:

> I did not say that the server MUST do so.
>  
> For my clarification: what is the proposal for OC-Supported-Features in answer messages? Is it  a MUST in all answer messages that correspond to requests that indicated DOIC support? If so, why is it better
> a) to always say “yes I support DOIC” rather than
> b) to always say “current overload is xx”  
> where xx includes the possibility to say “no overload” and of course b) implicitly indicates “yes I support DOIC”

Because B requires considerably more work for both sender and receiver, as well as more data overhead to essentially accomplish the same thing as A.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email