Hi Sriram, > On 11 Jan 2017, at 20:17, Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) > <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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.
Works for me. _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
