Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-trill-pseudonode-nickname-05

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Thu, 17 September 2015 13:22 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4A0B1B2FB0; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 06:22:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YBZfplOhb56Q; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 06:22:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [193.234.218.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFCD11B2A37; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 06:22:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3802E2CD02; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 16:22:30 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Tb5rgo3Z0lp8; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 16:22:29 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2582E2CC5C; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 16:22:27 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_9E18D909-DF99-48A1-BA6F-43190A5A926C"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.1
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <53C61587-9F97-4664-9F84-603199B46D3E@vigilsec.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 06:22:26 -0700
Message-Id: <EBCEEEC6-1184-420F-BC8E-D19444A0A54A@piuha.net>
References: <46A1A261-E9F4-414D-AAD8-9C85A8B53283@vigilsec.com> <4552F0907735844E9204A62BBDD325E7871A2CFE@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com> <CAF4+nEGAnyBVrv=Rbc0gfDijYsjraBW62ugC1Rwo07e6PSg_NA@mail.gmail.com> <53C61587-9F97-4664-9F84-603199B46D3E@vigilsec.com>
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/2E3X5sbARHBvAjvZvMsx79xACaw>
Cc: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>, Mingui Zhang <zhangmingui@huawei.com>, IETF Gen-ART <gen-art@ietf.org>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-trill-pseudonode-nickname.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-trill-pseudonode-nickname.all@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-trill-pseudonode-nickname-05
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 13:22:32 -0000

Thanks for the in-depth review, Russ! Very much appreciated.

I believe we still has to resolve what to do about the sort order.

(Maybe this helps: I’m not actually sure why in a k-element set you order them based <something> mod k because that would seem to produce likely duplicates. Since your backup option in the case of duplicates is proper numeric sort, why just not do that and only that? E.g. "RBridges are sorted in byte string ascending order by their LAALP IDs, or if they are equal, by their System IDs considered as unsigned integers.” But it could also be that it is too early and I have not yet had enough Diet Coke…)

Also, I am not sure I understand this in Section 5.2:

   Assuming there are … k member RBridges in an RBv; ... each RBridge is
   referred to as RBj where 0 <= j < k-1

Wouldn’t that mean that for 2 bridges you have RB0 only, because j=1 does not satisfy 0 <= j < k-1 because 0 <= 1 < 1 is untrue. But again, it is too early here and maybe I’m missing something.

Jari