I am not sure we are in sync, but it looks clsoe enough that proposed
introductory text would be veyr helpful at this point.
Yours,
Joel
On 7/13/2011 7:59 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
Hi, Joel,
On 7/13/2011 4:24 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
I am not sure what you are asking.
KARP is never concerned wi
There may be a confusion of objectives.
The WG and chairs do not expect the design guidelines document to
achieve a degree of thoroughness such taht if one checks every item in
there, and nothing else, then one will be able to do a complete analysis
of a routing protocol.
Rather, it is intended
Hi, Joel,
On 7/13/2011 4:24 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
I am not sure what you are asking.
KARP is never concerned with whether the party is authorized to send the
information it is sending.
Right - that's bullet 3.
KARP is concerned with assuring that the information received is either
the i
I am not sure what you are asking.
KARP is never concerned with whether the party is authorized to send the
information it is sending.
KARP is concerned with assuring that the information received is either
the information sent, or recognizably NOT the information sent (so it
can be discarded.)
Hi, Joel,
On 7/13/2011 2:26 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
You wording seems to induce confusion.
Of course the routing message content is part of the message
on-the-wire. It is the content of the message. It is in fact a
significant part of what is being protected.
What is NOT part of the scope, a
You wording seems to induce confusion.
Of course the routing message content is part of the message
on-the-wire. It is the content of the message. It is in fact a
significant part of what is being protected.
What is NOT part of the scope, and which the text says is not part of
the scope, is
Hi, Joel,
On 7/13/2011 1:58 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
I don't understand your description of the problem.
As you quote, the document clearly states its scope.
So, when we then define the term "on-the-wire", I don't think we need to
restate the scope definition. It woudl seem coutner-productive.
Hi, Joel,
On 7/13/2011 1:44 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
Sorry, I apparently missed part of your earlier note.
Would text like:
This document uses the term "on-the-wire" to talk about the information
used by routing systems. This term is widely used in IETF RFCs,but is
used in several different wa
I don't understand your description of the problem.
As you quote, the document clearly states its scope.
So, when we then define the term "on-the-wire", I don't think we need to
restate the scope definition. It woudl seem coutner-productive.
Yours,
Joel
On 7/13/2011 2:58 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
Sorry, I apparently missed part of your earlier note.
Would text like:
This document uses the term "on-the-wire" to talk about the
information used by routing systems. This term is widely used in IETF
RFCs,but is used in several different ways. In this document, it is
used to refer both to
On 7/13/2011 11:34 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
As I said in my earlier note proposing responses to Joe, we would be
happy to some text in the front clarifying the usage. Quoting from my
earlier email:
This text would note that it is a widely used term in IETF documents,
including many RFCs. It
On 7/13/2011 2:34 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
As I said in my earlier note proposing responses to Joe, we would be
happy to some text in the front clarifying the usage. Quoting from my
earlier email:
This text would note that it is a widely used term in IETF documents,
including many RFCs. It wou
As I said in my earlier note proposing responses to Joe, we would be
happy to some text in the front clarifying the usage. Quoting from my
earlier email:
This text would note that it is a widely used term in IETF documents,
including many RFCs. It would also state for clarity that in this
d
On 7/13/2011 1:31 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
Replacing a widely used term ("on the wire") with term that folks will
not understand does not seem to me personally to be a benefit.
I think Joe's point is that it's widely used as a concept, but what
it means specifically in this document is not cl
Hi, Joel,
On 7/13/2011 10:31 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
Replacing a widely used term ("on the wire") with term that folks will
not understand does not seem to me personally to be a benefit.
The problem is that "on the wire" is ambiguous. Many people think they
know what it means definitively,
Replacing a widely used term ("on the wire") with term that folks will
not understand does not seem to me personally to be a benefit.
In terms of this document, I do not see a problem with the usage as it
is. This is not a protocol document. The use of the current term in
this context seems
On 7/12/2011 3:36 PM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
On 12/07/2011 23:23, Joe Touch wrote:
Hi, Joel (et al.),
On 7/10/2011 7:10 AM, Joel Halpern wrote:
Joe,
THE KARP WG Chairs have reviewed your comments, in order to figure out
what the best way to address them. We would appreciate it if you could
en
On 12/07/2011 23:23, Joe Touch wrote:
Hi, Joel (et al.),
On 7/10/2011 7:10 AM, Joel Halpern wrote:
Joe,
THE KARP WG Chairs have reviewed your comments, in order to figure out
what the best way to address them. We would appreciate it if you could
engage in discussion of this proposal on the KARP
Hi, Joel (et al.),
On 7/10/2011 7:10 AM, Joel Halpern wrote:
Joe,
THE KARP WG Chairs have reviewed your comments, in order to figure out
what the best way to address them. We would appreciate it if you could
engage in discussion of this proposal on the KARP working group email
list. If you feel
Joe,
THE KARP WG Chairs have reviewed your comments, in order to figure
out what the best way to address them. We would appreciate it if you
could engage in discussion of this proposal on the KARP working group
email list. If you feel we are still not understanding your point, we
would
20 matches
Mail list logo
