Hi Med, On 2011/09/07, at 16:28, <mohamed.boucad...@orange-ftgroup.com> wrote:
> Hi Satoru, > > What I have done is I clarified the text as follows: > > " > o Complexity: Reflects the complexity level of understanding the > algorithm and the expected complexity to configure an > implementation. > " > > Is this fine or you think we need to elaborate further? I'm not sure that who should understand the algorithm, those who is ordinary customer, operator, implementer, etc., And from my experience, none of configuration complexity for 4rd implementations. These don't require any complicated configuration to generate port-set from port-set ID. cheers, --satoru > > Cheers, > Med > > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Satoru Matsushima [mailto:satoru.matsush...@gmail.com] > Envoyé : mercredi 7 septembre 2011 09:03 > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP > Cc : GangChen; softwires@ietf.org; Wojciech Dec > Objet : Re: [Softwires] Analysis of Port Indexing Algorithms > (draft-bsd-softwire-stateless-port-index-analysis) > > Hi Med, > > 2011/9/7 <mohamed.boucad...@orange-ftgroup.com>: >> Dear Gang, >> >> As per the following property: >> >> o Complexity: Complexity level of the algorithm >> >> I agree this can be split into several sub items but in -00 we used it to >> reflect the level of complexity to understand the algorithm and to configure >> it. I know Nejc had some experience in configuring for instance Murakami's >> 4rd implementation. He found that it was much more complex to understand >> than the portrange algorithm and the modulo algorithm. >> >> The text will be clarified. > > Interesting discussion. > It would be nice if you and us clarify that the complexity for what, > and for who. > > cheers, > --satoru _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
