IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.3

"Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)" <ulrich.wiehe@nsn.com> Fri, 06 December 2013 13:39 UTC

Return-Path: <ulrich.wiehe@nsn.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 4D8ED1ADFFB for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 05:39:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5] 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 yuU9Rft_DL1j for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 05:39:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from demumfd002.nsn-inter.net (demumfd002.nsn-inter.net [93.183.12.31]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCC221ADFAD for <dime@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 05:39:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from demuprx017.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.56]) by demumfd002.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id rB6Ddb0n032377 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 6 Dec 2013 14:39:37 +0100
Received: from DEMUHTC002.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.42.33]) by demuprx017.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id rB6DdbcG005479 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 6 Dec 2013 14:39:37 +0100
Received: from DEMUHTC008.nsn-intra.net (10.159.42.39) by DEMUHTC002.nsn-intra.net (10.159.42.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.123.3; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 14:39:36 +0100
Received: from DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net ([169.254.14.152]) by DEMUHTC008.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.42.39]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Fri, 6 Dec 2013 14:39:36 +0100
From: "Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)" <ulrich.wiehe@nsn.com>
To: ext Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.3
Thread-Index: Ac7xzgT7drC0NV4iSVSEGFHx9aP+WQAl1Z0AAAfOC0A=
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2013 13:39:36 +0000
Message-ID: <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D90006681519DD2A@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net>
References: <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D90006681519DB1B@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net> <AA10DFBD-CAC9-4B7B-8876-A4F28E63D83F@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AA10DFBD-CAC9-4B7B-8876-A4F28E63D83F@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.159.42.117]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-purgate-type: clean
X-purgate-Ad: Categorized by eleven eXpurgate (R) http://www.eleven.de
X-purgate: clean
X-purgate: This mail is considered clean (visit http://www.eleven.de for further information)
X-purgate-size: 1994
X-purgate-ID: 151667::1386337177-00002466-F355CE4F/0-0/0-0
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 13:39:47 -0000

Dear Jouni,

thanks again. 

Why isn't it so that others need to convince me/us?

Dear others,
Please let me know your arguments in favour of Sequence Number (if any).

Best regards
Ulrich



-----Original Message-----
From: ext Jouni Korhonen [mailto:jouni.nospam@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2013 11:27 AM
To: Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)
Cc: dime@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.3


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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email