[rbridge] Last Call: draft-ietf-trill-routing-reqs (TRILL Routing Requirements in Support of RBridges) to Informational RFC

[Eric Gray (LO/EUS)]

Dinesh,

	Please see one more question below...

Thanks!

--
Eric Gray
Principal Engineer
Ericsson  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dinesh G Dutt [mailto:ddutt at cisco.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 3:15 PM
> To: Eric Gray (LO/EUS)
> Cc: ietf at ietf.org; rbridge at postel.org; IETF-Announce
> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Last Call: 
> draft-ietf-trill-routing-reqs (TRILL Routing Requirements in 
> Support of RBridges) to Informational RFC
> 
> Hi Eric,
> 
> Eric Gray (LO/EUS) wrote:
> >>   - "Inefficient inter-bridge connection usage". What do you 
> >>     mean by this phrase?
> >>     
> >
> >   
> I guess my issue is the choice of words "inter-bridge 
> connection usage". 
> "connection" is undefined and not sure if it is the right word.
> > If traffic is demonstrably required to traverse more links
> > than some theoretical minimum, than link utilization is -
> > by definition - less efficient than it theoretically can
> > be.
> >   
> If this what you want to say, something along the lines of
"Non-optimal 
> pair-wise forwarding of unicast frames using spanning tree also
results 
> in inefficient usage of links" will be sufficient. However, I think
that 
> merely stating the lack of non-optimal pair-wise forwarding is
sufficient 
> to imply this and many other issues around this style.

I'm not sure how much clearer it is to say what you're suggesting
than what it already says.  However this is not critical text, so
what would you like it to say and where would you like it to go?

What I'm asking for is "replace text saying <$*%&(%)> with new text
saying <*$&*@(_&$&>"...

> >> What is proposed in the current solution is to run a spanning tree 
> >> protocol instance per port which maybe not scalable. 
> >>
> >> I think something like "It's strongly desirable to minimize the
> >> interaction between the bridges and Rbridges and constrain a 
> >> spanning tree" is more appropriate.
> >>     
> >
> > Yet it is difficult to imagine how this would translate to a 
> > requirement that would make sense to someone evaluating the 
> > acceptability of a routing protocol for the TRILL problem-space.
> > Perhaps it would be simpler to omit the offending text?
> >   
> OK with me.
> 
> Dinesh
> 
> -- 
> We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by 
> the depth of our answers.                               - Carl Sagan
>