Subject: [magma] MLDv2: list of messages

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 14:10:02 +0100 (CET)

I've sent 9 messages with MLDv2 questions and comments.
This concludes all my comments and questions.

Their subjects have been:
Subject: [magma] AD review comments on draft-vida-mld-v2-06.txt
Subject: [magma] MLDv2: relationship to RFC 2710
Subject: [magma] MLDv2: robustness assumption
Subject: [magma] MLDv2: operation without state change reports: include list
Subject: [magma] MLDv2: operation without state change reports: exclude list
Subject: [magma] MLDv2: operation without state change reports: periodic
queries Subject: [magma] MLDv2: invariant behavior
Subject: [magma] MLDv2: editorial comments and questions
Subject: [magma] MLDv2: Exclude mode

FYA the content of these comment and question is about 650 lines total.
The draft has about 2900 lines.

This means one line of comment/question per 4-5 lines of the draft.

  Erik

_______________________________________________
magma mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/magma

---

From: "Rolland Vida" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 11:14:15 +0100

Erik,

> This means one line of comment/question per 4-5 lines of the draft.

In the major part of your comments you were mainly complaining about the
readability of the algorithm, not about its correctness. The fact is that
the problem, and the possible scenarios, are so complex, that is hard to
propose a simple and succinct solution. Thus, it is also hard to argue, in
few words, both in favor or against the protocol. Therefore, IMHO, the
length of this discussion is due to this fact as well.

Rolland

---

From: "Rolland Vida" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 11:14:15 +0100

Erik,

Rolland

---

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 19:13:09 +0100 (CET)

> length of this discussion is due to this fact as well.

Sure. But the more complex the protocol the more careful and extensive
introduction (with clear concepts etc) are needed. This spec is clearly
lacking in this respect.

So it still reflects on the quality of the spec - quality per rfc 2026
related to well-understood and no known holes.

  Erik

---

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 19:13:09 +0100 (CET)

Erik