RE: [RPRWG] RE: Evaluation of timeToLive alternatives
Mike,
> I am quite certain the BAH has not voted on forcing
> a frame to have an SA that exists on the ring.
> Therefore, my objection to your algorithm stands.
The BAH is considering three options, which have
8-bit or 48-bit local source identifiers,
depending on the proposal.
The agreed-upon strategy is to select between these
three proposals, or a refined version of them. If you
are planning on proposing a new fourth alternative,
I'm sure the BAH would prefer to see that ASAP.
> Therefore I felt I am under no obligation
> to correct a typographical error on your part
> since I did not reference it in my rebuttal.
Clearly no obligation, but probably helpful to
avoid propagation of known code bugs.
DVJ
David V. James, PhD
Chief Architect
Network Processing Solutions
Data Communications Division
Cypress Semiconductor, Bldg #3
3901 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95134-1599
Work: +1.408.545.7560
Cell: +1.650.954.6906
Fax: +1.408.456.1962
Work: djz@xxxxxxxxxxx
Base: dvj@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-17@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-17@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Mike Takefman
> Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002 9:55 AM
> To: djz@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: David V. James; Anoop Ghanwani; stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [RPRWG] RE: Evaluation of timeToLive alternatives
>
>
>
> David,
>
> I am quite certain the BAH has not voted on forcing
> a frame to have an SA that exists on the ring.
> Therefore, my objection to your algorithm stands.
>
> Based on that fact, my email did not discuss your
> algorithm aside from pointing out its reliance
> on having a lookup based on SA.
>
> Therefore I felt I am under no obligation
> to correct a typographical error on your part
> since I did not reference it in my rebuttal.
>
> have a great weekend,
>
> mike