IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dime] OVLI: comments to 4.3

Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> Tue, 10 December 2013 10:18 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 54C7E1AD944 for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 02:18:17 -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 KmU5OLPC2lDx for <dime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 02:18:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-bk0-x22f.google.com (mail-bk0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4008:c01::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 070EE1A1F3D for <dime@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 02:18:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-bk0-f47.google.com with SMTP id mx12so1839466bkb.20 for <dime@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 02:18:08 -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=wembXsPY8PvalwTDF3QDkgm2qfPh8T1O9r8y+E7LPFA=; b=tcZ6SQCOUggLolMC6V1FXzQp17fwTAOUGHl38WOEtydE9a6037afDsOTBavQoW1Eat FXCcNzIpI5XIb8+iLh2TdB4EjJWSKN3sc9VVZxb4kVbB7yS8U90QhCMsbX7ANlfFpUGS igZ3oFDNLph+4dXMNMjWQkxTMVdLF3KyVE4io2LIsHTvRuYT0i62QNoA8GjJnQxhleXh sjq/ldmRb92Oql3Uoslr2cQKi6/ijT3Eq88nnZTmVCrWXMAhb/KdAEy7d/XU5NJWUN5+ eMwDl3ONwnGp/0AUPVL6m8sVH6vEE+N9e/GA2B6FeLqECaXrGdt+4VNyS0ccm6Bvr2cq mxbQ==
X-Received: by 10.205.64.209 with SMTP id xj17mr257946bkb.76.1386670688369; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 02:18:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:6e8:480:60:44d6:cc4b:4513:f475? ([2001:6e8:480:60:44d6:cc4b:4513:f475]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id qg7sm11099950bkb.6.2013.12.10.02.18.07 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 10 Dec 2013 02:18:07 -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: <087A34937E64E74E848732CFF8354B9209739F8C@ESESSMB101.ericsson.se>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 12:18:06 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <651FE189-F6B1-4807-938D-67C6B7841044@gmail.com>
References: <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D90006681519DB1B@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net> <AA10DFBD-CAC9-4B7B-8876-A4F28E63D83F@gmail.com> <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D90006681519DD2A@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net> <FBC2AC60-A7A8-4D71-8B0F-ADECC10A1311@nostrum.com> <A9CA33BB78081F478946E4F34BF9AAA014D29713@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> <5BCBA1FC2B7F0B4C9D935572D90006681519DF8A@DEMUMBX014.nsn-intra.net> <A9CA33BB78081F478946E4F34BF9AAA014D2D548@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> <2495B298-0B49-406A-884C-0C354D87948E@nostrum.com> <087A34937E64E74E848732CFF8354B9209739F8C@ESESSMB101.ericsson.se>
To: Maria Cruz Bartolome <maria.cruz.bartolome@ericsson.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Cc: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, "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: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:18:17 -0000

> 
> 
> [MCruz] My understanding is that validity-period should be adjusted by reporting node depending on their expectations on traffic reduction by one client. Therefore, it should be updated towards _each_ client, based on reporting node expectations on _each_ client traffic reduction. I understand it does not mean (necessarily) that validity period has to be updated each time a message is sent, but it will depend on each overload situation and per client.
> 

This is my understanding as well (and how the text currently is written.. or 
is meant to be read ;)

- Jouni

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email