Re: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.3

Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> Fri, 06 December 2013 10:27 UTC

Return-Path: <jouni.nospam@gmail.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 F14241AE307 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 02:27:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 AMv8_RnlNY5o for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 02:27:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-bk0-x231.google.com (mail-bk0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4008:c01::231]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62A641AC7F0 for <dime@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 02:27:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-bk0-f49.google.com with SMTP id my13so221528bkb.22 for <dime@ietf.org>; Fri, 06 Dec 2013 02:27:16 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=Qh3s0Mr1tKwVfTnR0ZnfnqadEPSHmJShLjPSkRh5qm8=; b=IsEovcmSHrpHWk2XR7o3z68EzLUEDvOTxgEd6ZX6Ez3geDRV7HnvCMfYxJ1OTZMNgj OMFIqOn2hQrq0y5oi2QMUN3b1phKEzQ6mud6365TRZFGgxzILCamu2Bg773FmFR6n1yL /lK/j2o06oOaFZoFOolAAlxS+P/eyCjUseiot9+YHcRmw5hTccEWAf2gCIrgn6omCXT8 4ikm2QsNwydf3eBAepEf/Ke+qEjR9la8VJXT18VimPaqZyxw0GopMPQoUtYc124oVzc7 798k21XwDbXlvt3AEYBa8CeKpHQ3edxclxvrME96dCtm5OKB88yJFp1ebspeb6mfb7Wl JDEw==
X-Received: by 10.205.64.209 with SMTP id xj17mr873683bkb.76.1386325636739; Fri, 06 Dec 2013 02:27:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:1bc8:101:f101:bc2d:564c:9083:9cf9? ([2001:1bc8:101:f101:bc2d:564c:9083:9cf9]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id j6sm77266083bki.17.2013.12.06.02.27.16 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 06 Dec 2013 02:27:16 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
From: Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D90006681519DB1B@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net>
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2013 12:27:18 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <AA10DFBD-CAC9-4B7B-8876-A4F28E63D83F@gmail.com>
References: <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D90006681519DB1B@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net>
To: "Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)" <ulrich.wiehe@nsn.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Cc: "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.3
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, 06 Dec 2013 10:27:24 -0000

On Dec 5, 2013, at 5:23 PM, "Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)" <ulrich.wiehe@nsn.com> wrote:

> Dear all,
>  
> here are comments to clause 4.3:
>  
> 1. Extensions in OC-OLR must either be mutually supported or must be ignorable. In the first case it is not enough for the reporting node to declare support of an extension in the sent OC-Feature-Vector AVP. For the second case there is no need to declare (or even define) support of an extension.

I am afraid I do not understand what you mean by above.

> Proposal is to expand the second sentence as follows:
>    OC-OLR may also be used to convey additional information about mutually supportedextensions that are
>    declared in the OC-Feature-Vector AVPs, and may also be used to convey additional ignorable information.

Not sure about the wording "ignorable information".. but otherwise ok with me.

>  
> 2. TimeStamp has been replaced with Sequence-Number. This has the negative impact that reacting nodes must calculate the expiration time base on OLR-reception time. OLR reception time and OLR creation time  may be significantly different.
> I don’t see any reason in favour of Sequence-Number. Proposal is to replace Sequence-Number with TimeStamp.

I agree but you need to convince the others as well who favoured sequence number.

- Jouni


>  
> Best regards
> Ulrich
>  
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> DiME@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime