RARE user and assistance email list

[Frédéric LOUI <>]

> tbh i would appreciate if somebody from the team could join me and
> present the geant and rare project slides,

I’d be glad to co-present with you :)

À bientôt,
--  Frederic




> Le 19 févr. 2021 à 15:12, mc36 <> a écrit :
> 
> hi,
> 
> On 2/19/21 2:50 PM, Simon Leinen wrote:
>> Few small items about the IETF slideset:
>> * Maybe a few words on what GEANT (the project) is before starting with
>>   "WP6-T1 sub-task..."?
> tbh i would appreciate if somebody from the team could join me and
> present the geant and rare project slides, just because what i can
> tell them about these, from my perspective, is maybe not even crosses
> the official standpoint: geant is here to connect us, nrens together
> and provide us cheap(er) internet, and rare is here to create a
> dataplane and a playground to hack that on and destroy it...:)
> so if anybody does not agree with the above, i warmly welcome
> him/her as as a co-presenter on both events.... :)))))))
> 
> 
>> * On the "targets" slide, "Tofino" is almost invisible next to the bold
>>   "NPU".  And I wouldn't call the Tofino an NPU (well, technically it's
>>   easy to say it *is* an NPU, but the P4 community avoids that term,
>>   probably because NPUs have gotten something of a bad name in the past.
>>   I would probably just write "Intel/Barefoot Tofino on Wedge ..." or
>>   maybe "...Tofino switching silicon on ..."
> thanks for pointing out, will update asap!
> 
> 
>> "Key take-way" -> "Key take-away"
> thanks again!
> 
>> In my experience, what an IETF WG really wants to hear from implementers
>> of a new protocol is which implementation obstacles you found and how
>> you surmounted them.  So you may want to expand on the "ECMP pitfall"
>> item.
> my plan is to stay longer on the two technical slides, and that ecmp
> issue is something i have to explain them a bit longer, i just written that
> there to not to forget to talk about... but it's a bit bigger thing that it
> could be written to ppts slides... but agree that a drawing would help here
> to explain them the issue... and if they won't get it, i'll detail them the
> observations to the mailing lists to start the conversation...
> 
> 
>> (Of course they will also appreciate feedback of the form "I found the
>> BIER standard very readable and was able to implement everything just
>> from reading the text.  But in general the IETF culture is based more on
>> constructive criticism than on positive encouragement, for better or
>> worse :-)
> i already told them my opinion about the text when it was just a draft
> and i had to read it throughly to implement it... i wont repeat that as
> 
> it's out now... anyway i just found one thing, the endian-ness question
> is even not touched at all, and when asked about it, some said that as
> usual, msb, nothing to see here, some agreed to my suggestion to clarify
> it a bit... but finally they did not merged the sentences... and it turned
> out that we interwork so it's crystal clear, at least for us and junos...:)
> 
> regards,
> cs