Let me use an example.
Suppose there are four (k=4) RBridges: RB1, RB2, RB3 and RB4. Their SystemIDs
are 001, 010, 011 and 100. Suppose the LAALP ID is 1. Then the four
concatenations are 0011, 0101, 0111 and 1001 while the four 'mod' values are 3,
2, 3, 1. So, these are not always the same, even for the same LAALP ID.
For the above example, the sorted list would be (RB4, RB2, RB1, RB3). Here, RB1
and RB3 have been sorted using their unsigned-integer-SystemID as a
tie-breaker. Have I cleared the doubt?
From: Russ Housley [mailto:housley(_at_)vigilsec(_dot_)com]
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2015 12:19 AM
Cc: IETF Gen-ART; IETF
Subject: Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-trill-pseudonode-nickname-06
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review
Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for
the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call
comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at
Reviewer: Russ Housley
Review Date: 2015-09-11
IETF LC End Date: 2015-09-01
IESG Telechat date: 2015-09-17
Summary: Almost Ready
Thanks for resolving my comments on the -05 version of this document.
Building on the comment from my previous review on Section 5.2, Step 1:
Your response said, "The sort is done in the per-LAALP base. It's not
to make the LAALP ID to a constant length. Besides, the 'mod'
function always returns a value in [0, k-1] whatever the length of LAALP ID
The role of the 'mod' function was clear to me.
In Section 5.2, Step 1, the updated text says, "System ID and LAALP ID are
considered as byte strings", but the Step 2 text refers to "the numerically
sorted list". If all of the System IDs are the same length, then these are
obviously the same. Is that always the case?