IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Dime] OVLI: OC-Validity-Duration

Maria Cruz Bartolome <maria.cruz.bartolome@ericsson.com> Thu, 12 December 2013 07:53 UTC

Return-Path: <maria.cruz.bartolome@ericsson.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 3D6D11AE0F9 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 23:53:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.239
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.239 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 aC-JP7xhTtwa for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 23:53:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sessmg21.mgmt.ericsson.se (sessmg21.ericsson.net [193.180.251.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 505A51AD7C5 for <dime@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 23:53:52 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb28-b7f268e000001b97-00-52a96b8a8421
Received: from ESESSHC008.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by sessmg21.mgmt.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 55.3C.07063.A8B69A25; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 08:53:46 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ESESSMB101.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.197]) by ESESSHC008.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.42]) with mapi id 14.02.0347.000; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 08:53:46 +0100
From: Maria Cruz Bartolome <maria.cruz.bartolome@ericsson.com>
To: "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: OVLI: OC-Validity-Duration
Thread-Index: Ac73DRNgVjMdaw2ATnC3EBEvo4YB4g==
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 07:53:45 +0000
Message-ID: <087A34937E64E74E848732CFF8354B920973AB4B@ESESSMB101.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.154]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_087A34937E64E74E848732CFF8354B920973AB4BESESSMB101erics_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFjrKLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+JvrW5X9sogg/e9hhZze1ewOTB6LFny kymAMYrLJiU1J7MstUjfLoErY8LEG4wFN0wrOideYG1gnK/fxcjJISFgIjHl4ndWCFtM4sK9 9WxdjFwcQgInGCWur3/JDuEsYZRYt2oKC0gVm4CdxKXTL5i6GDk4RASUJU7/cgAJCwOZGztW sIHYIgIaEjNfnWCHsPUkvqxrYAMpZxFQlbg9TwEkzCvgK9Hc/QpsLyPQ3u+n1jCB2MwC4hK3 nsxngrhHQGLJnvPMELaoxMvH/6DuVJJYdPsz2AXMAvkSDyekQ4wUlDg58wnLBEahWUgmzUKo moWkCqJER2LB7k9sELa2xLKFr5lh7DMHHjMhiy9gZF/FKFmcWlycm25kqJebnluil1qUmVxc nJ+nV5y6iREYFQe3/NbYwdh9zf4QozQHi5I4b9XMziAhgfTEktTs1NSC1KL4otKc1OJDjEwc nFINjNpiPYdl29aklAnWyX6bx1H1dS677oKHNy8kW3dtydXdUxAX2O4huXD7Vgc7reRi28zE jX8zfwiveyH91qSEbe1ra5nye4vL1a/fzmj7PGdjhP2dKyu2Mjw7ZeZgxPXfp0d06cwrSm/S 587rW/NN9mbRqQMqV02mZ62Q2l3nk3DC/1XbQiPGBiWW4oxEQy3mouJEAFSPeWVYAgAA
Subject: [Dime] OVLI: OC-Validity-Duration
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: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 07:53:55 -0000

Dear all,

I would like to reconsider the real need for the OC-Validity-Duration AVP to be included into overload report.
Overload mechanism is being design with a principle in mind: as soon as reporting node determines a reacting node overload behavior should change, reporting node sends a fresh overload report to this reacting node.
Therefore, latest overload report received will be always applicable until a new report is received, and then I do not see the value, but just complexity, of including a Duration in the report.

Let me know your views.
Best regards
/MCruz

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email