Thanks Chris, that makes sense. We'll leave it as minutes then. Best, Alberto
On 8/20/19, 2:14 PM, "Christian Hopps" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
