Jon's original answer satisfied me so I'm not expecting a change.
Le 2019-01-10 à 16:39, Jeff Tantsura a écrit : > +1 Jon > > Cheers, > Jeff > On Jan 10, 2019, 2:58 AM -0800, Jonathan Hardwick > <[email protected]>, wrote: >> Hi Julien >> >> At the moment, the L bit is simply called "the L bit" (not "limit" or >> "limitless") and is defined like this: >> >> * L: A PCC sets this bit to 1 to indicate that it does not impose >> any limit on the MSD. >> >> Although it might be the opposite of what you'd expect, I think the >> definition is nevertheless clear as it is written. >> >> Cheers >> Jon >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Julien Meuric <[email protected]> >> Sent: Monday, 7 January, 2019 9:37 AM >> To: Jeff Tantsura <[email protected]> >> Cc: Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]>; Jonathan Hardwick >> <[email protected]>; Martin Vigoureux >> <[email protected]>; The IESG <[email protected]>; >> [email protected]; [email protected] >> Subject: Re: Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on >> draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-14: (with COMMENT) >> >> Hi Jeff, >> >> You're right. I certainly don't want to change the specification, nor >> to add another ambiguity. I was just looking for a mnemonic to >> mitigate the confusion pointed out by Martin, to be considered between >> bracket (leaving the definition as is). >> Would "limit-blind" make sense? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Julien >> >> >> On 06/01/2019 20:20, Jeff Tantsura wrote: >>> Hi Julien, >>> >>> Happy New Year to you too. >>> There’s a slight difference between limitless (e.g. unlimited) and >>> limit has not been been imposed (not configured/unknown/etc). >>> I think “limitless” doesn’t convey the exact meaning. In simple terms >>> - if L=1, don’t use MSD as a constraint in the path computation. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Jeff >>> >>> On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 02:28 <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi guys and happy new year! :-) >>> >>> Would it temper the confusion below if we added the term >>> "limitless" to >>> the L flag definition (section 5.1.1.)? >>> >>> My 2 cents, >>> >>> Julien >>> >>> >>> On 21/12/2018 18:14, Jonathan Hardwick wrote: >>>> I believe it is too late to change but I find L=1 meaning "no >>> limit" is *very* confusing. For me L stands for Limit and when L=1 >>> there is a limit, when L=0 there is none. >>>> >>>> [Jon] Agree, both that it is confusing and too late to change >>> :-) >>> _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
