Hi Alexey, My comment in line below.
>From: Alexey Melnikov [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2017 4:57 AM) > > > On 5 Jan 2017, at 03:19, Suresh Krishnan <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> On 01/04/2017 09:38 AM, Sean Turner wrote: > >> > >>>> On Jan 4, 2017, at 05:09, Randy Bush <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> +1 to the comment from Suresh about order. I though that something > >>>> +like > >>>> what he proposed will minimize memcopies and possibly use of memory > >>>> why hashing. So I am also curious to know answer to his question. > >>> > >>> a vendor engineer actually implementing requested the change to the > >>> current syntax for ease of generating/parsing. > >>> > >>> randy > >> > >> I believe this is that thread that resulted in the final organization: > >> > >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidr/8B_e4CNxQCUKeZ_AUzsdnn2f5M > >> U > > > > Thanks for the pointer Sean. Very interesting. > > Indeed! I wish a few words about design could be added to the draft. > The design explanation would be a bit long as you can see from Oliver's (implementer's) post. There is a BGPsec design discussion document (to be published as an independent submission RFC): https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sriram-bgpsec-design-choices-11 I think that would be better place to include this design rationale as well. Sriram _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
