Subject: [Dime] [dime] #77 (draft-ietf-dime-ovli): Section 4.2.3 - Reporting node behavior (overload report handling)

From: "dime issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 20:54:07 -0000

#77: Section 4.2.3 - Reporting node behavior (overload report handling)

 Propose adding the following two paragraphs after the third paragraph
 (location isn't critically important):

    The reporting node MUST include the OC-Validity-Duration AVP in the
 OLR.

    The reporting node MUST include a report-type in the OLR.

-- 
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
 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/77>
dime <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dime/>

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 18:15:11 -0500

Are these not mandatory in the in the AVP definition? If they aren't they should be, and if they are, the text is redundant.

---

From: Maria Cruz Bartolome <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 05:53:54 +0000

Hello Steve,

See below
Thanks

-----Original Message-----
From: DiME [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of dime issue tracker
Sent: lunes, 13 de octubre de 2014 22:54
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [Dime] [dime] #77 (draft-ietf-dime-ovli): Section 4.2.3 - Reporting node behavior (overload report handling)

 Propose adding the following two paragraphs after the third paragraph  (location isn't critically important):

    The reporting node MUST include the OC-Validity-Duration AVP in the  OLR.
[MCruz] There is a default value in ch. 6.5. No need to set this AVP explicitly.

-- 
-------------------------------------+----------------------------------
-------------------------------------+---
 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: Steve Donovan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 23:45:48 +0200

Maria Cruz,

The OC-Validity-Duration is defined in the OC-OLR syntax as being required.

As a result, we should remove the default value statement.  Ben has also 
pointed out that these two statements below are not needed because it is 
already defined in the OC-OLR syntax.

Steve

---

From: "dime issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 07:03:12 -0000

Changes (by [email-masked]):

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

Comment:

 Agreed to close with no change as these requirements are already addressed
 in the syntax definition.

 Reaffirmed consensus on report-type being required due to the need for it
 to be used by a reporting node to help differentiate reports when there
 are multiple in a message.

-- 
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
 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:  invalid
 Keywords:                           |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dime/trac/ticket/77#comment:1>
dime <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dime/>