Re: [Mipshop] Review of Transient Binding Spec

[Marco Liebsch <marco.liebsch at nw.neclab.eu>]

Hi Vijay,

Vijay Devarapalli schrieb:
> Hi Ahmad,
>
> Lets keep the discussion just technical please. I am sure there is a better
> way to respond than just saying "you don't understand" or you need to read".
>
> Lets try to come up with some text that says that the problem can be solved
> with implementation specific mechanisms at the LMA and buffering at the nMAG
> when the L2 is not setup. But this document proposes a mechanism that
> addresses the problem better.
>   
But this is what we extensively discuss in the appendix. What we could 
do is add a reference to
the appendix in the introduction. But what you propose is confusing: If 
you write that the problem can
be solved with implementation specific mechanisms, then you pretend that 
"the problem is solved",
which is not true. And then you cannot write that this protocol 
addresses the problem better. Such
statement is confusing to any reader. The pretty much detailed 
evaluation "protocol vs. static
configuration" is in the draft. Cannot remember any spec who does this. 
So, we addressed a WG
member's comment to include this. I think we can move forward.

If we need to add a reference to the appendix in the introduction, I 
would not say that static implementation
can solve "the" problem. Some issues from the problem space may be 
addressed, but with a 'one solution
for all situations' approach. The drawback of such static approach is 
discussed in the appendix. So, a reference
should be ok.

The document will be RFC Experimental first. Folks can implement and can get
convinced about the benefit:complexity-ratio. I do not see any value in 
adding a misleading note to the
spec that folks should not implement this as you may solve it by static 
implementation.

marco

> Vijay
>
>
> On 8/17/09 4:35 AM, "Ahmad Muhanna" wrote:
>
>   
> > Hi,
> > inline.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Ahmad
> >
> >     
> > >