Eastlake III Donald-LDE008
Donald.Eastlake at motorola.com
Tue Oct 10 20:06:43 PDT 2006
Thanks for your improvements to this draft also.
I've again deleted below the cases where we completely agreed and
responded to the one where I have something to say. See at @@@
From: Gray, Eric [mailto:Eric.Gray at marconi.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 3:56 PM
To: Eastlake III Donald-LDE008
Cc: rbridge at postel.org
Subject: RE: [rbridge] draft-gray-trill-routing-reqs-01.txt
The following is the disposition with respect to your comments
on the Routing Requirements draft. I have made other - relatively minor
- changes to this draft and will be submitting it to the Internet Drafts
@@@ (numerous cases of agreement deleted here)
Page 8, section 4.3, last line, replace "interactions with
bridges" with "interactions between routers and bridges".
As a general comment, this draft spends more time than it
needs to on co-located routers and RBridges. It's okay to
mention that as it makes particularly clear the need to be
able to distinguish routing protocol messages used for
routing and for RBridge interaction but I'm not the sort
of co-location needs to be mentioned so much.
? - there are a total of 4 instances of use of the
word "co-located" (or "colocated" as it was before)
and - of those - one could be removed without loss
of information. However, that one instance serves
as a parenthetical reminder in the sentence:
@@@ My comment was based on my general impression. I hadn't counted
"there may be specific requirements imposed on the
interactions [...] between RBridge instances and
(potentially co-located) IP routing instances."
It's parenthetical, I think it adds value, and it
is a single (extra) instance that could hardly be
thought to wear out the expression.
However, if other people feel that it doesn't add
value, I will be happy to take it out.
--- [SNIP] ---
@@@ ^ This is how me mail ends... Was there any additional material?
More information about the rbridge