Russ,
It is good that you have started to read this draft several times recently and asking the questions that should have been asked during the WG state or even during the WG LC. But Adrian ask was very clear and specific wrt section 6.3 and we am not opening this document for yet another round of comments specially considering that this draft has been around for several years in WG state. More in line ... On 2/2/15, 4:11 PM, "Russ White" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> [JD] What RFC 7432 actually says is: "The MAC Address Length field is >>in bits, >> and it is set to 48. >> MAC address length values other than 48 bits are outside the scope of >>this >> document." So, The MAC Address field is a variable length field whose >> length is currently set to 48. > >And the figure clearly shows the length at 6 octets only. I'm not arguing >the draft didn't _intend_ to make this a variable length field -- I'm >arguing the draft, as written, can easily be misinterpreted, and could >use clarification. Wrt this draft, the text is very clear as it has been implemented by several major vendors. Now if you are wondering what would be the application for variable length, that is outside of the scope of this draft as the draft clearly says that. However, if variable length is used, the length field is basically the length of subnet address within the 6 octets w/ remaining bits set to zero. This may not be clear to you but that doesn¹t make the existing text inaccurate. > >> [JD] Just because you don't like/understand it doesn't necessarily >>mean it's >> wrong. > >John -- you could have said, "I think it's elegant because..." -- or, "I >agree it's not perfect, but we chose this solution because..." Instead, >you decided to launch a personal attack, calling me >stupid/uneducated/ignorant/whatever. This is one of the things that >drives me absolutely nuts about working in the IETF -- we cannot hold >ourselves to an actual discussion, we have to find some way to make >claims about other people personally, no matter whether or not we think >they're true, etc. The next time someone says, "I can't figure out why we >are losing participation in the IETF," go back and reread your response. Ross, if you don't like John's response, then you should probably take a look at your email. You didn¹t ask your question(s) but rather asserting that "the solution is not elegant². -Ali > >Now -- to return to the actual topic at hand -- I find the idea of >binding things together tightly, and then creating an "alias," rather >than creating a looser bind and map in the first place, is worse. That >might not fit what you think, but it's still something worth mentioning. > >:-) > >Russ > >_______________________________________________ >BESS mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
