Subject: [Dime] [dime] #82 (draft-ietf-dime-ovli): 6.4. OC-Sequence-Number AVP

From: "dime issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 21:06:57 -0000

#82: 6.4.  OC-Sequence-Number AVP

 Propose modifying the second paragraph:

 Before:

    From the functionality point of view, the OC-Sequence-Number AVP MUST
    be used as a non-volatile increasing counter between two DOIC nodes.

 After:

    From the functionality point of view, the OC-Sequence-Number AVP MUST
    be used as a non-volatile increasing counter for an individual overload
 report between two DOIC nodes.

 Also propose adding the following paragraph at the end of the section:

 The sequence number is not required to be greater between discrete
 overload reports.

-- 
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
 Reporter:                           |      Owner:  draft-ietf-dime-
  [email-masked]           |  [email-masked]
     Type:  defect                   |     Status:  new
 Priority:  major                    |  Milestone:
Component:  draft-ietf-dime-ovli     |    Version:
 Severity:  Active WG Document       |   Keywords:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dime/trac/ticket/82>
dime <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dime/>

---

From: Maria Cruz Bartolome <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 05:53:55 +0000

Hello Steve,
See below please
/MCruz

-----Original Message-----
From: DiME [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of dime issue tracker
Sent: lunes, 13 de octubre de 2014 23:07
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [Dime] [dime] #82 (draft-ietf-dime-ovli): 6.4. OC-Sequence-Number AVP

 Before:

 After:

    From the functionality point of view, the OC-Sequence-Number AVP MUST
    be used as a non-volatile increasing counter for an individual overload  report between two DOIC nodes.

 The sequence number is not required to be greater between discrete  overload reports.
[MCruz] Not sure what do you mean by  "discrete" OLR? Either they are different (higher sequence numbers) or they are same (same sequence number, or?

-- 
-------------------------------------+----------------------------------
-------------------------------------+---
 Reporter:                           |      Owner:  draft-ietf-dime-
  [email-masked]           |  [email-masked]
     Type:  defect                   |     Status:  new
 Priority:  major                    |  Milestone:
Component:  draft-ietf-dime-ovli     |    Version:
 Severity:  Active WG Document       |   Keywords:
-------------------------------------+----------------------------------
-------------------------------------+---

_______________________________________________
DiME mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime

---

From: "dime issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 16:20:33 -0000

Changes (by [email-masked]):

 * status:  new => closed
 * resolution:   => fixed

Comment:

 Changed to the following:

         From the functionality point of view, the OC-Sequence-Number AVP
 MUST
          be used as a non-volatile increasing counter for a sequence of
 overload reports
          between two DOIC nodes for the same overload occurance.

-- 
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
 Reporter:                           |       Owner:  draft-ietf-dime-
  [email-masked]           |  [email-masked]
     Type:  defect                   |      Status:  closed
 Priority:  major                    |   Milestone:
Component:  draft-ietf-dime-ovli     |     Version:
 Severity:  Active WG Document       |  Resolution:  fixed
 Keywords:                           |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dime/trac/ticket/82#comment:1>
dime <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dime/>