All,
Thank you for your comments.
Attached is Draft 5 with changes and revised
comments at the end. (We could always go return to Draft4.)
Bob
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] ;
On Behalf Of Bob Miller (Redacted sender "bob.miller" for DMARC)
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2016 3:58 PM
To: Mike LaBonte
Cc: dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Radek Biernacki; Curtis Clark; Bob Ross;
IBIS-ATM
Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: Draft4 BIRD 147.2
yup. -Bob
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Mike LaBonte <mlabonte@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Just checking: the consensus is that BCI_GetWave_Block_UI is required when
BCI_Protocol is present? I’ll agree that defaults are not a great idea for a
specification unless they truly represent something dominant.
Mike
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] ;
On Behalf Of Bob Miller (Redacted sender "bob.miller" for DMARC)
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2016 6:35 PM
To: Radek Biernacki (radek_biernacki@xxxxxxxxxxxx)
Cc: Curtis Clark; dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Bob Ross; IBIS-ATM
Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: Draft4 BIRD 147.2
I'm fine with the emerging consensus.
Bob
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 4:28 PM, <radek_biernacki@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
If the default of 1000 is not necessarily a preferred value then we will indeed
be better staying away from it and keeping things simpler.
Radek
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] ;
On Behalf Of Curtis Clark
Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2016 2:46 PM
To: dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Bob Ross <bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; IBIS-ATM <ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: Draft4 BIRD 147.2
I like simplicity here, too. I don't think the minor convenience benefit of
having a default value for BCI_GetWave_Block_UI is enough to justify the unique
specification language and unique parser behavior that are required to make
that one parameter "optional".
If BCI_GetWave_Block_UI simply required when BCI_Protocol exists, just like the
other 3 parameters that already follow this rule, then things are simpler.
That being said, I have no strenuous objection to the current version.
Thanks,
Curtis
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Bob Miller <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I generally like simplicity. Especially if the time spent understanding the
complexity offsets any hassle saved by the exceptions the complexity affords.
But in this case it isn't really my battle. If its your front yard that is
being overrun by free-range cows you might want a more precise (and complex)
fenceline.
Regards,
Bob
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 2:14 PM, Bob Ross <bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
All,
Per the discussion 10/4/16, I have revised the draft so that
BCI_GetWave_Block_UI
is illegal if BCI_Protocol is missing.
Curtis makes a point separately that we could just have a rule - All BCI_*
parameters
or none and no defaults for a cleaner and simpler rule.
I could make the change, if people prefer this.
Bob
--
Bob Ross
Teraspeed Labs
http://www.teraspeedlabs.com
bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Direct: 503-246-8048
Office: 971-279-5325
Attachment:
BIRD147.2_draft5.docx
Description: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
