IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Fri, 14 February 2014 21:51 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 82C021A0449 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 13:51:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.036
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.036 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] autolearn=no
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 sLLp090zLq3A for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 13:51:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shaman.nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A23671A0428 for <dime@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 13:51:48 -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 shaman.nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id s1ELphPJ053328 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 14 Feb 2014 15:51:44 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
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: <27861_1392393201_52FE3BF1_27861_1566_1_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E4A3E77@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 15:51:42 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <83E6BED2-035D-4C26-A1AF-9F833B1070C5@nostrum.com>
References: <057.2153d3a0ed57933cb4ec7468d82db1d9@trac.tools.ietf.org> <61BD40D6-20C5-4F47-876D-27E2D323C241@nostrum.com> <97EF76DD-0AAA-458C-90E4-A16443E5B06B@gmail.com> <F8DA59C4-65A5-44B5-8DD9-AEDA8F04C32D@nostrum.com> <087A34937E64E74E848732CFF8354B9209772FEF@ESESSMB101.ericsson.se> <087A34937E64E74E848732CFF8354B9209774086@ESESSMB101.ericsson.se> <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D9000668151B2F04@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net> <087A34937E64E74E848732CFF8354B9209774131@ESESSMB101.ericsson.se> <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D9000668151B2F51@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net> <E194C2E18676714DACA9C3A2516265D202664851@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <A9CA33BB78081F478946E4F34BF9AAA014D6C2C9@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D9000668151B3207@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net> <E194C2E18676714DACA9C3A2516265D2026649BC@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <087A34937E64E74E848732CFF8354B9209774896@ESESSMB101.ericsson.se> <E194C2E18676714DACA9C3A2516265D2026649F8@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-luc! ent.com> <52FCB76E.6020202@usdonovans.com> <E194C2E18676714DACA9C3A2516265D2026686E4@FR712WXCHMBA12.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <087A34937E64E74E848732CFF8354B9209775207@ESESSMB101.ericsson.se> <27861_1392393201_52FE3BF1_27861_1566_1_6B7134B31289DC4FAF731D844122B36E4A3E77@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
To: "ext lionel.morand@orange.com" <lionel.morand@orange.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827)
Received-SPF: pass (shaman.nostrum.com: 173.172.146.58 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dime/e6b7cDn_GCxEgM53BsQJU1BTnF8
Cc: "dime@ietf.org list" <dime@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] [dime] #45: Why is a validity duration of 0 disallowed?
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: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 21:51:51 -0000

On Feb 14, 2014, at 9:53 AM, lionel.morand@orange.com wrote:

> In other words, I think that we should have the following cases:
> 
> -	non-zero reduction, non-zero validity period => Valid
> -	0 reduction, non-zero validity period => Valid (not blocking)
> -	0 reduction, 0 validity period => Valid
> -	non-zero reduction, 0 validity period => Invalid
> 
> Does it make sense?


I don't think so.

The idea is that setting Validity-Period to zero ends an overload condition, without regard to the algorithm. Reduction-Percentage is specific to the default algorithm. I don't think we need to create an algorithm-specific rule here, at least not normatively. So I would say that a Validity-Period of zero ends overload, without regard to the algorithm, or any algorithm specific values.

I recognize that interacts with my previous comment about ignoring OLRs that have invalid Reduction-Percentage values, in that you could have silly things like [reduction-percentage=14732, validity-period=0]. In that case, I think the validity period would take precedent over the invalid reduction-percentage.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email