On Jan 11, 2017, at 5:34 PM, Alexey Melnikov <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi Sriram, On 11 Jan 2017, at 20:17, Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) <[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On 01/04/2017 09:38 AM, Sean Turner wrote: On Jan 4, 2017, at 05:09, Randy Bush <[email protected]<mailto:[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. FWIW, Works for me as well. Regards Suresh
_______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
