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

[Jouni Korhonen <[e-mail]>]

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.
> 
>