Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
In-Reply-To: <DM2PR09MB04465394949EA3F934F2D5DD84660@DM2PR09MB0446.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 22:34:48 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A6D95FEC-CDDE-49FA-BAC7-429821A3CDE0@fastmail.fm>
References: <148352385243.12916.15407627777806532255.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
 <m2vatvkug0.wl-randy@psg.com>
 <64ABB874-A355-4F91-93D6-6671CB6A354C@sn3rd.com>
 <E87B771635882B4BA20096B589152EF6440DC8C3@eusaamb107.ericsson.se>
 <309117C0-FA5E-412A-B19B-F2C86B2DA02B@fastmail.fm>
 <DM2PR09MB04465394949EA3F934F2D5DD84660@DM2PR09MB0446.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>
To: "Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed)" <kotikalapudi.sriram@nist.gov>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidr/yauWsAmLEPtRVxPrO1qGVJnWikc>
Cc: "draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol@ietf.org"
 <draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol@ietf.org>,
 "m.waehlisch@fu-berlin.de" <m.waehlisch@fu-berlin.de>,
 Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>,
 sidr chairs <sidr-chairs@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>,
 sidr wg list <sidr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sidr] Alexey Melnikov's Yes on
 draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-21: (with COMMENT)
Precedence: list

Hi Sriram,

> On 11 Jan 2017, at 20:17, Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) <kotikalapudi.sriram@=
nist.gov> wrote:
>=20
> Hi Alexey,
>=20
> My comment in line below.
>=20
>> From: Alexey Melnikov [mailto:aamelnikov@fastmail.fm]=20
>> Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2017 4:57 AM)
>>=20
>>>> On 5 Jan 2017, at 03:19, Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>=
 wrote:
>>>>=20
>>>> On 01/04/2017 09:38 AM, Sean Turner wrote:
>>>>=20
>>>>>> On Jan 4, 2017, at 05:09, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> +1 to the comment from Suresh about order. I though that something=20=

>>>>>> +like
>>>>>> what he proposed will minimize memcopies and possibly use of memory=20=

>>>>>> why hashing. So I am also curious to know answer to his question.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> a vendor engineer actually implementing requested the change to the=20=

>>>>> current syntax for ease of generating/parsing.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> randy
>>>>=20
>>>> I believe this is that thread that resulted in the final organization:
>>>>=20
>>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidr/8B_e4CNxQCUKeZ_AUzsdnn2f5M
>>>> U
>>>=20
>>> Thanks for the pointer Sean. Very interesting.
>>=20
>> Indeed! I wish a few words about design could be added to the draft.
>=20
> The design explanation would be a bit long as you can see from=20
> Oliver's (implementer's) post.
> There is a BGPsec design discussion document (to be published
> as an independent submission RFC):
>=20
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sriram-bgpsec-design-choices-11 =20
>=20
> I think that would be better place to include this design rationale as wel=
l.

Works for me.