Re: Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-mboned-driad-amt-discovery-10: (with COMMENT)
Barry Leiba <[email protected]> Wed, 18 Dec 2019 14:58:46 -0500
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.mboned |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CALaySJK+kwHh6RXMN2UjZS=Gfgs29275nuSQ7TbXiNEK5vJgPg@mail.gmail.com> |
Hi, Jake, and thanks for the response. > NEW: > In this simple example, the sender IP is 198.51.100.15, it is sending > traffic to the group address 232.252.0.2, and the relay ... Excellent; thanks. > > Among relay addresses that still have an equivalent preference after > > the above orderings, a gateway MUST make a non-deterministic choice > > for relay preference ordering, in order to support load balancing by > > DNS configurations that provide many relay options. > > > > What do you have in mind here? Random selection? Something else? If so, what > > else that can be assured to be non-deterministic, given the "MUST"? > > I was thinking "random or pseudorandom" and thought this phrasing was > cleaner. > > I can change it to "random or pseudorandom", or if there's a better or more > normal way to phrase it I'd be happy to use that. (I was worried "random" is > too strong, if taken literally.) I think "non-deterministic" is fine; I was mostly wondering whether you had other things in mind. It wouldn't be unreasonable to make the text say something like "a non-deterministic choice (such as a pseudorandom selection)", but use your judgment and no need to reply further here. Barry _______________________________________________ MBONED mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned