On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 06:25:24PM -0500, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > Actually, there is at least one important additional factor. > It is not clear that it is necessary to find all working paths.
I'd put it differently. Its pretty clearly not the case.
> Given one working path, one might want to find a second early.
> Given a suspicion that the two may have commonality, a background search
> for more, while using the ones that work, is understandable.
Sure.
> But communication does not need to wait on the O(n^2) search unless
> finding pairs that work is rare.
I would expect only a mis-implementation to try to
enumerate all of the pairs before communicating.
> One does hope that normally most pairs
> work. THis is actually a question about design targets. If we assume
> that most paths are bad / non-working, then one needs lots of paths, and
> some way to search among them very fast.
I agree. As I said, when things are working as expected,
everything works. I would hope that we have that property.
> But I don't think that is our design center.
Not sure what you meant by that.
Dave
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
