Re: [mif] AD review of MPVD Architecture

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Wed, 17 December 2014 22:04 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E9881A8781 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 14:04:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 pj0Hjq4grzUV for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 14:04:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pa0-x232.google.com (mail-pa0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::232]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9606B1A0164 for <mif@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 14:04:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pa0-f50.google.com with SMTP id bj1so17338505pad.9 for <mif@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 14:04:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=LPCFpLDQJsXDCwTzi6MugI57U6rYzqUHkyIOEvUpks4=; b=uG/pRLQb0nDoez0SU/CAV1FwvFTEVCdVJLUffnFOubQ8iKKLlmtWuPjEiNExyrwBJj o1N7mbJPx5qg3ubVHp9TIcro2SzGqMS8WtNXMcXXuoNGjCjkHQfVa6V7kvROd0UWOEDr WmtuFFLtcX3+3hMC/kAqH+nwTNqepufVNI4L7V8C3zd4/LaQmWHiWeENrYdY8+9CHUo+ 4EIplF6HLTJ+KoE7sFWlrIayAVLcK2U3XUBjg2c9hcZMR0uDc9BNpDv+6RVi4AEk+g4n LI4hkg2wjTcMGVpZwRg4/f2kBF6KRcTZ5T0bpTQnyx+RxkYno3ZOJbUFVIu5gNW4f/2L 8eag==
X-Received: by 10.70.23.99 with SMTP id l3mr73573740pdf.86.1418853874896; Wed, 17 Dec 2014 14:04:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:6d06:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:6d06:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id e2sm4888029pdo.11.2014.12.17.14.04.31 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 17 Dec 2014 14:04:33 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <5491FDF7.5050101@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 11:04:39 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
References: <9071C858-BBCA-483C-94CD-E7C2584980F0@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <9071C858-BBCA-483C-94CD-E7C2584980F0@nominum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mif/QuXSZ6dQaDibQBDHOxxMR1SUN_8
Cc: "mif@ietf.org List" <mif@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mif] AD review of MPVD Architecture
X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List <mif.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mif/>
List-Post: <mailto:mif@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 22:04:37 -0000

On 18/12/2014 04:48, Ted Lemon wrote:

...
> What's the rationale for the third sentence in the paragraph below?
> 
>    In some network topologies, network infrastructure elements may need
>    to advertise multiple PvDs.  Generally, the details of how this is
>    performed will be defined in companion design documents.  However,
>    where different design choices are possible, the choice that requires
>    a smaller number of packets shall be preferred for efficiency.
> 
> I ask because I think this is DISCUSS fodder: someone is going to want details.   If it's important, let's keep it and defend it.   If it's more of an aside, let's get rid of it.

Good catch, IMHO. I could easily imagine an argument that a smaller
number of packets that for some reason need more complex processing
would actually be less efficient. Let's not invite that argument -
delete the sentence.

   Brian