Re: [Dime] [dime] #46: Bad normative advice on not letting overload reports expire

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

On Feb 10, 2014, at 5:16 AM, Jouni Korhonen <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 
> My reasoning for explicit termination was that knowing the implementation
> folks they will let overload conditions expire unless advised otherwise.
> And having unnecessary stuff hanging around waiting for a cleanup is not
> a good thing in general. But I am open here for other options..
> 

I think it's reasonable to say that a reporting node should terminate an overload condition in a timely manner. But if it's about to expire anyway, then expiration might be just as timely as an explicit report. 

And of course, the definition of "timely" is somewhat a matter of policy. For example, I can imagine an deployment that had a large number of clients using fairly short validity durations, and _never_ explicitly signaling an end to an overload condition. This adds a bit of a "slow-start" to the recovery, since different clients will expire the overload condition at different times, and the load will ramp up gradually. I don't see anything wrong with that. Of course, it wouldn't work if one chose long validity durations, or if the signaling of overload to different clients happened in close synchronization.