IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dime] Issue#32 status

Steve Donovan <srdonovan@usdonovans.com> Tue, 25 February 2014 20:07 UTC

Return-Path: <srdonovan@usdonovans.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 112E31A01E1 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 12:07:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.58
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] 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 nm-Fy7jiq_df for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 12:07:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from biz131.inmotionhosting.com (biz131.inmotionhosting.com [173.247.247.114]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E446A1A0157 for <dime@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 12:07:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cpe-76-187-100-94.tx.res.rr.com ([76.187.100.94]:56167 helo=SDmac.local) by biz131.inmotionhosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <srdonovan@usdonovans.com>) id 1WIL0J-0004U9-1Q; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 08:37:14 -0800
Message-ID: <530CC6A2.5010702@usdonovans.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:36:50 -0600
From: Steve Donovan <srdonovan@usdonovans.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)" <ulrich.wiehe@nsn.com>, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
References: <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D9000668151B3D63@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net> <530BAC7C.7080106@usdonovans.com> <E2257532-C0EE-4D2D-8305-DED5828B4FCC@nostrum.com> <530CB073.7000802@usdonovans.com> <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D9000668151B47C2@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net>
In-Reply-To: <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D9000668151B47C2@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080203010806070409000108"
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - biz131.inmotionhosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - usdonovans.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: biz131.inmotionhosting.com: authenticated_id: srdonovan@usdonovans.com
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dime/jwZs0cX-Hc9wMIEwi3j8ddsmR60
Cc: "dime@ietf.org list" <dime@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] Issue#32 status
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: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 20:07:03 -0000

Ulrich,

Yes, with that period being long enough for the reporting node to be
confident that all previously sent overload reports have expired.

Steve

On 2/25/14 10:21 AM, Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich) wrote:
> Steve, Ben,
>
> for my clarification, your proposal is to say
>
> ***
> Sequence number is of type Unsigned64.
>
> When generated, a new sequence number must be greater than the sequence number contained in the active overload report to which it applies (including over reboot of that node).  Note: this allows sequence numbers to start at 1 for the initial occurrence of an overload condition at a reporting node.
> ***
>
> If so, what is meant by "initial occurrence of an overload condition"?
>
> I guess it means something like moving from no overload to overload after a sufficiently long periode of no overload
>
> Please clarify
>
> Ulrich
>
>
> From: DiME [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Steve Donovan
> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 4:02 PM
> To: Ben Campbell
> Cc: dime@ietf.org list
> Subject: Re: [Dime] Issue#32 status
>
> I agree with the suggested change.
>
> Steve
> On 2/24/14 5:00 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
> + 1, except as noted:
>
> On Feb 24, 2014, at 2:33 PM, Steve Donovan <srdonovan@usdonovans.com> wrote:
>
> Ulrich,
>
> Would you agree to the following to replace the first two statements:
>
> Sequence number is of type Unsigned64.
>
> When generated, a new sequence number must be greater than the sequence number contained in the active overload report to which it applies (including over reboot of that node).  Note: this allows sequence numbers to start at 1 for any occurrence of overload at a reporting node.  This, I think, allows us to ignore wraparound issues as wraparound will never happen.  Unless we are worried about a server staying in overload for billions of years (assuming reports with a ten minute validity period refreshed every five minutes).
>
> s/ any occurrence of overload / the initial occurrence of an overload condition
>
>
> The other two statements are good.
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email