Re: [Pce] Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-14: (with COMMENT)

[Jeff Tantsura]

+1 Jon

Cheers,
Jeff
On Jan 10, 2019, 2:58 AM -0800, Jonathan Hardwick 
, 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 
> Sent: Monday, 7 January, 2019 9:37 AM
> To: Jeff Tantsura 
> Cc: Dhruv Dhody ; Jonathan Hardwick 
> ; Martin Vigoureux 
> ; The IESG ; 
> draft-ietf-pce-segment-rout...@ietf.org; pce@ietf.org
> 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  > > 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
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

Re: [Pce] Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-14: (with COMMENT)

[Jonathan Hardwick]

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  
Sent: Monday, 7 January, 2019 9:37 AM
To: Jeff Tantsura 
Cc: Dhruv Dhody ; Jonathan Hardwick 
; Martin Vigoureux 
; The IESG ; 
draft-ietf-pce-segment-rout...@ietf.org; pce@ietf.org
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  > 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
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce