Re: [Dime] [dime] #44: Incorrect sequence number behavior

I am ok with the proposed wording here.

- Jouni

On Feb 24, 2014, at 11:24 PM, Steve Donovan <srdonovan@usdonovans.com> wrote:

> Lionel,
> 
> I believe that Ben's issue was with the following wording in section 4.3 
> 
>  
>    The Sequence-Number AVP indicates the "freshness" of the OC-OLR AVP.
>    It is possible to replay the same OC-OLR AVP multiple times between
>    the overload control endpoints, however, when the OC-OLR AVP content
>    changes or sending endpoint otherwise wants the receiving endpoint to
>    update its overload control information, then the OC-Sequence-Number
>    AVP MUST contain a new greater value than the previously received.
>    The receiver SHOULD discard an OC-OLR AVP with a sequence number that
>    is less than previously received one.
> 
> 
> The wording you reference is in section 5.5.2.
> 
> The above wording can be improved by changing the last sentence to "The reacting node SHOULD discard an OC-OLR AVP with a sequence number that is less than or equal to the previously received sequence number."
> 
> Steve
> 
> On 2/8/14 10:53 AM, lionel.morand@orange.com wrote:
>> Hi Ben,
>> 
>> The case "equal" is discussed in the previous sentence.
>> 
>> Check the following:
>> 
>>    The received OC-Supported-Features AVP does not change the existing
>>    overload condition and/or traffic abatement algorithm settings if the
>>    OC-Sequence-Number AVP contains a value that is equal to the
>>    previously received/recorded one.  If the OC-Supported-Features AVP
>>    is received for the first time for the reporting node or the OC-
>>    Sequence-Number AVP value is less than the previously received/
>>    recorded one (and is outside the valid overflow window), then either
>>    the sequence number is stale (e.g. an intentional or unintentional
>>    replay) and SHOULD be silently discarded.
>> 
>> The first sentence implies that the received OLR is ignored. 
>> 
>> And actually, there is something wrong in the last sentence. At the end, 
>> 
>>    recorded one (and is outside the valid overflow window), then either
>>    the sequence number is stale or replay (e.g. an intentional or unintentional
>>    replay) and SHOULD be silently discarded.
>> 
>> The "either" in the first line should be removed.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Lionel
>> 
>> 
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : DiME [
>> mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org
>> ] De la part de dime issue tracker
>> Envoyé : vendredi 7 février 2014 22:49
>> À : 
>> draft-docdt-dime-ovli@tools.ietf.org; ben@nostrum.com
>> 
>> Cc : 
>> dime@ietf.org
>> 
>> Objet : [Dime] [dime] #44: Incorrect sequence number behavior
>> 
>> #44: Incorrect sequence number behavior
>> 
>>  section 4.3 says that the receiver should discard an OLR with a sequence
>>  number less than the most recent. That should be less than or equal.
>>  Technically, re-applying the same OLR should make no difference, but it's
>>  never needed, and could be error prone if the sender screwed something up.
>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> DiME@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime