Subject: r.upper_bound

From: "Ayers, Mike" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 12:46:42 -0500

There is no clause in RFC2741 requiring r.upper_bound to have a
value greater than that of the r.range_subid'th subid of r.subtree.  Yet the
name is r.upper_bound, not, say, r.range_bound, which implies that it must
be the greater value.  Which is the correct interpretation?

	Thanks,

/|/|ike /+yers
Test Engineer
BMC Software
                                             Beware of geeks bearing gifts.

---

From: Mark Ellison <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 08:20:55 -0400

Hi Mike,

I've always believed:

       (r.range_subid == 0)  /\  (sub_id[r.range_subid - 1] <= r_upper_bound)

where:

      (sub_id[r.range_subid - 1] == r.upper_bound) is a degenerate condition, so
is considered optional, imho

The u.upper_bound text on p29 indicates its the upper bound of the range
sub-identifier.  Possibly this text isn't where you need it?  What text would
you suggest to clarify?

Hope this helps...

\\Mark

The