On Jun 13, 2019, at 1:18 PM, Randy Bush <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
Otherwise the definition of “timestamp” would be the same as in RFC
7854. So, something like this should be added in the for BMP
ADJ-RIB-OUT draft:
o Timestamp: The time when the encapsulated routes were advertised
(one may also think of this as the time when they were installed
in the Adj-RIB-Out), expressed in seconds and microseconds since
midnight (zero hour), January 1, 1970 (UTC). If zero, the time is
unavailable. Precision of the timestamp is implementation-
dependent.
just ref 7854 sec 4.2 Timestamp
Only problem just referencing it is “timestamp” in 7854 isn’t quite the same as
what Mukul suggests. Here’s 7854:
o Timestamp: The time when the encapsulated routes were received
(one may also think of this as the time when they were installed
in the Adj-RIB-In), expressed in seconds and microseconds since
midnight (zero hour), January 1, 1970 (UTC). If zero, the time is
unavailable. Precision of the timestamp is implementation-
dependent.
Only the first clause differs, but it’s an important clause. It would be
equally correct to say something like “Timestamp: this is the same as the
timestamp defined in RFC 7854 section 4.2, except the time it specifies is when
the encapsulated routes were advertised (one may also think of this as the time
when they were installed in the Adj-RIB-Out).”
I don’t have a strong preference between the two. One normally wants to avoid
cut-and-paste, but in this case optimizing the text saves a grand total of 9
words and makes the reader look in two places. Potayyyto, potaaaatto.
—John
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
