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

Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> Fri, 18 September 2015 04:54 UTC

Return-Path: <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
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 631B51A8AC5; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 21:54:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.75
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.75 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 aTbSgrszC00V; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 21:54:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x22a.google.com (mail-oi0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 63CC61A8ABC; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 21:54:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by oiev17 with SMTP id v17so21067275oie.1; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 21:54:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=XFSJUj0Ry0ll2u15AjONF8yYFmOYCK1jZOKNdwVFHuU=; b=xphJwAWz0pEi6mJ0e1z3QFp3/pHDT378I9TqeQTBB6G3GvvW45/wbcGbIq7nGDVRAJ rvavcZIf556E8S76Q1pkpJMfOGKZuxhYNZGL30nJerbMk26cYnFWjiiov9O9M74mmdfV uMioFEfw8lj9TO9Ab/DAr8aplSSnnxchrE7+I6oueO7LmPiFhbLHHpPxtNhBgwyhzmj7 ttHV76Jrbnr+wr4L1xcGshnhRPbFIQsMpAWeK8OEHz5EGBCl/fwRLcoRj5bogzKTD+ue IGXAdvbskjJp9Wxst8VDjvvSeDK85zQ2zBkSGrkp8Cp1YXeZSqDppSAmxLV9Dm1j63cc Wm9Q==
X-Received: by 10.202.52.67 with SMTP id b64mr2341531oia.0.1442552088747; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 21:54:48 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.76.144.65 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 21:54:34 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <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> <EBCEEEC6-1184-420F-BC8E-D19444A0A54A@piuha.net>
From: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 00:54:34 -0400
Message-ID: <CAF4+nEEcz7fQLaXZSSGFrEECOfeLkhqUwrXbpjkxRnuybeefOA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/eClhckGSRDu5oIYoG_AUfNcmShM>
Cc: 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: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 04:54:50 -0000

Hi Jari,

On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 9:22 AM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:
> 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…)

I believe the idea is to quasi-randomize the order. The DF election is
per VLAN and a goal is to spread the multicast traffic across the
RBridges in the active-active edge group.

> 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.

It is interesting that no one else noticed this. I agree it should
either be "... j <= k=1" or "... j < k".

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 d3e3e3@gmail.com

> Jari
>