> On Aug 20, 2019, at 2:30 PM, Alberto Rodriguez Natal (natal) > <[email protected]> wrote: > > - TTL is limited to minute units. This may be overly restrictive. > Couldn't > there be some use (perhaps not common) e.g., perhaps when debugging, > or in > future versions of the protocol where seconds granularity might be > useful? > Changing these nodes later is non-backwards compatible and thus very > painful to do. > > [AR] That's a fair comment. We used minutes in the model, however, since > RFC6833bis defines the TTLs in minutes. Do you think it would be reasonable > to leave the TTL in minutes and aligned with 6833bis?
If it were me I'd probably use seconds and mention in the description that the RFC granularity is minutes; however, since you don't define a range (a good thing) one backward compatible way to be able to specify sub-minute values in the future would be to augment in a seconds (or sub-seconds) node and have the minutes value be 0, so I think you're OK if you want to leave it as minutes. Thanks, Chris.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
