Re: [Dime] Issue#32 status

["Wiehe, Ulrich (NSN - DE/Munich)" <[e-mail]>]

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:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of ext Steve Donovan
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 4:02 PM
To: Ben Campbell
Cc: [e-mail] 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 <[e-mail]> 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