Hi Spencer, On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, Donald, > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 8:21 AM, Donald Eastlake <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Spencer, >> >> Thanks for the comments. See below >> >> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 7:23 PM, Spencer Dawkins >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for >> > draft-ietf-trill-rfc6439bis-04: No Objection >> > >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > COMMENT: >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > >> > I had trouble parsing "output it to or queue it for" (this occurs twice >> > in the sentence). >> > >> > However, it does not output it to or queue it for that link, >> > although, if appropriate (for example, the frame is multi- >> > destination), it may output it to or queue it for other links. >> >> It's kind of verbose but I believe that actual output port >> implementations typically provide for directly streaming out a packet >> even as other parts of the packet are still arriving at the switch, >> particularly in cut-through routing, or just sticking it in a queue >> for output later if the port is busy. Do you have any suggestion for >> better wording? > > > I was thinking that > > However, it does not output it to, or queue it for, that link, > although, if appropriate (for example, the frame is multi- > destination), it may output it to, or queue it for, other links. > > might be clearer.
OK. That looks good to me. Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA [email protected] > If the RFC Editor removes the commas, of course, you can slap me in Chicago > ;-) > > Spencer >> >> >> > I don't think the text is incorrect, just awkward. Perhaps commas would >> > help? >> > >> > In these three subsection titles, >> > >> > 3.2.1 Change Optimization One >> > >> > 3.2.2 Change Optimization Two >> > >> > 3.2.3 Settling Detection Optimization >> > >> > I found the title for 3.2.3 helpful, but not 3.2.1 or 3.2.2. Is it >> > possible to come up with more descriptive titles? >> >> That's a reasonable point. Maybe >> >> 3.2.1 Optimization for Change to Lower Priority >> >> 3.2.2 Optimization for Change to Priority Only >> >> >> > I found >> > >> > For robustness, a TRILL switch sends a number of copies of a Port- >> > Shutdown messages configurable from one to three, which defaults to >> > two copies, at a configurable interval, which defaults to 20 >> > milliseconds (see Section 6.6). >> > >> > difficult to parse. Perhaps >> > >> > For robustness, a TRILL switch sends a configurable number of copies >> > of Port-Shutdown messages separated by a configurable interval. The >> > default >> > number of copies is two, although this can be configured as one copy >> > or as three copies, and the default interval is 20 milliseconds >> > (see Section 6.6). >> > >> > ? >> >> Sure, that seems like an improvement. Might also be good to say "time >> interval" instead of just "interval". >> >> Thanks, >> Donald >> =============================== >> Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) >> 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA >> [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ trill mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill
