Russ, Comments inline
Yours Irrespectively, John > -----Original Message----- > From: Russ White [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 7:12 PM > To: John E Drake; 'Rabadan, Jorge (Jorge)' > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [bess] EVPN Draft Comments > > > > [JD] What RFC 7432 actually says is: "The MAC Address Length field > > is in bits, and it is set to 48. > > MAC address length values other than 48 bits are outside the scope of > > this document." So, The MAC Address field is a variable length field > > whose length is currently set to 48. > > And the figure clearly shows the length at 6 octets only. I'm not arguing the > draft didn't _intend_ to make this a variable length field -- I'm arguing the > draft, as written, can easily be misinterpreted, and could use clarification. [JD] The field is six octets. What is contained within the field is six octets today but may be less in the future. AFAIK this is consistent w/ standard IETF design, e.g., CIDR. > > > [JD] Just because you don't like/understand it doesn't necessarily > > mean it's wrong. > > John -- you could have said, "I think it's elegant because..." -- or, "I > agree it's > not perfect, but we chose this solution because..." Instead, you decided to > launch a personal attack, calling me stupid/uneducated/ignorant/whatever. > This is one of the things that drives me absolutely nuts about working in the > IETF -- we cannot hold ourselves to an actual discussion, we have to find > some way to make claims about other people personally, no matter whether > or not we think they're true, etc. The next time someone says, "I can't figure > out why we are losing participation in the IETF," go back and reread your > response. > > Now -- to return to the actual topic at hand -- I find the idea of binding > things > together tightly, and then creating an "alias," rather than creating a looser > bind and map in the first place, is worse. That might not fit what you think, > but it's still something worth mentioning. [JD] Your chastisement of my egregious behavior would have been more compelling if you had provided any technical arguments for why the current design has issues or flaws. > > :-) > > Russ _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
