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

Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> Mon, 10 February 2014 22:12 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 4034B1A08A8 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:12:50 -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 03uiFEI8CtyZ for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:12:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lb0-x233.google.com (mail-lb0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B18C1A03D6 for <dime@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:12:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lb0-f179.google.com with SMTP id l4so5247100lbv.38 for <dime@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:12:47 -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=ODu2QJDcKems63N/ZyITgjR28fA1LyDpTL2BzrIJc4w=; b=E8g1lOPQ4WIcEBf01gRC+sJ2wajdWhQb3QJaBMVwEj6XE6u+xaC2TkIbm4VLln9p1g vs/ScfK/fJaQ9XgYawz1DmbRzONF/BmgUer5/q2U+vWh3D+zQG/ff4N2NUUn3lYmp8Zc Dq8W7W5+6+ucwju+0SirEA9uml/6bZIIv+ZXdFw1RZL6Uk8+LfRC7pMAn38K+wjvLcQm 2LIiDRUaJFs+jhTeErPASColaAlmLxqKXAUgc48tTKHLFPe5TeIvfTJGtZQKG2BXGGIX 0tATS7RChtgbFromR7TdZIugV0+1Sz+yp8KhCfJJKsZ9vGfN/+4Oy5ztSrqvWXnElF2C li7A==
X-Received: by 10.112.142.230 with SMTP id rz6mr22559493lbb.0.1392070367075; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:12:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [188.117.15.108] ([188.117.15.108]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id t5sm24260585lat.6.2014.02.10.14.12.42 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:12:43 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
From: Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <61BD40D6-20C5-4F47-876D-27E2D323C241@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 00:12:42 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <97EF76DD-0AAA-458C-90E4-A16443E5B06B@gmail.com>
References: <057.2153d3a0ed57933cb4ec7468d82db1d9@trac.tools.ietf.org> <A27A0204-5080-46F6-B1F4-B4FE1CB1AD5D@gmail.com> <889030ED-A32B-442D-BE2D-674950AA769E@nostrum.com> <B28458B2-D601-4914-B51D-C05C61B3DCB8@gmail.com> <61BD40D6-20C5-4F47-876D-27E2D323C241@nostrum.com>
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Cc: "dime@ietf.org list" <dime@ietf.org>, draft-docdt-dime-ovli@tools.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: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 22:12:50 -0000

Just post it here.



On Feb 10, 2014, at 6:25 PM, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> wrote:

> Okay. Does that mean we should assign the issue to me in the tracker?
> 
> On Feb 10, 2014, at 10:06 AM, Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Ben,
>> 
>> Propose some text and we can see how it fits in.
>> 
>> - Jouni
>> 
>> 
>> On Feb 10, 2014, at 5:53 PM, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> On Feb 10, 2014, at 5:12 AM, Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Feb 7, 2014, at 11:54 PM, dime issue tracker <trac+dime@trac.tools.ietf.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> #45: Why is a validity duration of 0 disallowed?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Section 4.5 disallows a validity duration of zero. Why do we want to
>>>>> disallow that? It would allow a quick way of ending any existing overload
>>>>> condition without worrying about the semantics of the abatement algorithm.
>>>>> (We currently use a reduction percentage of zero to end an overload
>>>>> condition--but that's specific to the loss algorithm and might not make
>>>>> sense for all future ones.)
>>>> 
>>>> Right. Avoiding two ways of ending overload condition was the reason.
>>>> I am OK to have validity duration 0 as an additional method ending the
>>>> overload condition based on the reasoning above.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> I would go further and make duration 0 the _preferred_ way, for two reasons:
>>> 
>>> 1) It's algorithm independent. (reduction-percentage of 0 is specific to algorithms that use reduction percentage.)
>>> 
>>> 2) Explicit signaling of the end of an overload condition becomes semantically identical to the expiration of an overload condition. This allows a simpler implementation.
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>