Subject: [rbridge] Draft Ordering Clarification

From: "David Michael Bond" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 11:46:20 -0500

Hello Everyone,
I had a question about the current draft. Consider section 4.5.1. This
section says "After calculating the entire "tree" (actually, directed
graph), for each node N, if N has "p" parents, then order the parents
according to 7-octet IS-IS ID." I assume this ordering is low to high but
the draft should probably clarify this. I suggest wording it "After
calculating the entire "tree" (actually, directed graph), for each node N,
if N has "p" parents, then order the parents ***ascending*** according to
7-octet IS-IS ID." My change highlighted with ***.
Thanks,
David

                    David Bond                    
.~~~~~.~~~~~.~~~~~.~~~~~~.~~~~~~.~~~~~.~~~~~.~~~~~.
.University of New Hampshire                      .
.    - InterOperability Laboratory                .
.        Research and Development Software Eng.   .
.        Routing & Bridge Functions Consortiums   .
.    - Computer Science PhD Student               .
. 121 Technology Drive, Suite 2, Durham NH, 03824 .
.    (O) 1-603-862-3525     (M) 1-603-845-7514    .
.~~~~~.~~~~~.~~~~~.~~~~~~.~~~~~~.~~~~~.~~~~~.~~~~~. 

_______________________________________________
rbridge mailing list
[email-masked]
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 15:17:34 -0500

Hi David,

I agree. In fact, perhaps it should says "... ascending according to
7-octet IS-IS ID treated as an unsigned integer."

There may be one or two other places where it would be good to say that the
IS-IS system ID is an unsigned integer. For example, at the end of the first
paragraph of 4.2.5.1.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-634-2066 (home)
155 Beaver Street
Milford, MA 01757 USA
[email-masked]

On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 11:46 AM, David Michael Bond <[email-masked]
> wrote: