[GSMP] [Fwd: IESG comments on draft-ietf-gsmp-dyn-part-reqs]
avri doria <avri@acm.org> Fri, 04 October 2002 12:58 UTC
Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA02101 for <gsmp-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 08:58:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g94D09Z05427 for gsmp-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 09:00:09 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g94D09v05424 for <gsmp-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 09:00:09 -0400
Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA02095 for <gsmp-web-archive@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 08:58:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g94Cx9v05322; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 08:59:09 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g94CtQv05134 for <gsmp@optimus.ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 08:55:26 -0400
Received: from sm.luth.se (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA01773 for <gsmp@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 08:53:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from acm.org (sm-pc301.sm.luth.se [130.240.45.27]) by sm.luth.se (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g94CtElP026332 for <gsmp@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 14:55:17 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-ID: <3D9D8F59.9080203@acm.org>
Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 14:53:45 +0200
From: avri doria <avri@acm.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.1b) Gecko/20020721
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: gsmp@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.11 (www dot roaringpenguin dot com slash mimedefang)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [GSMP] [Fwd: IESG comments on draft-ietf-gsmp-dyn-part-reqs]
Sender: gsmp-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: gsmp-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: gsmp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gsmp>, <mailto:gsmp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: General Switch Management Protocol <gsmp.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:gsmp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gsmp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gsmp>, <mailto:gsmp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hi Folks, We have gotten comments back from the IESG on the Partitining Requirements ID. I would like to see comments on the list from the participants of the WG and especially from the authors in repsonse to these issues. As I understand it, we can then fix the draft and/or send our repsonse to each of the questions back to the IESG. a. ps. i have some personal responses, but will send them in time to the list as part of the, hoefully, ongoing discussion. Scott Bradner wrote: >can you take this to the WG list? > >Scott > >------ >From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> >To: iesg <iesg@ietf.org> >Subject: draft-ietf-gsmp-dyn-part-reqs-02.txt >Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 10:37:40 -0700 > > o Requirements for the Dynamic Partitioning of Switching Elements > (Informational) > <draft-ietf-gsmp-dyn-part-reqs-02.txt> > >are SEs only layer 2, or can a virtual router be an SE? > >--- > >microsoftisms in the text > >--- > >in intro para 2, the enumeration omits the case where a single >logical SE or controller might be implemented by multiple devices > >--- > >in the discussion > > Dynamic Partitioning > > Static repartitioning of a SE can be a costly and inefficient > process. First, before static repartitioning can take place, all > existing connections with controllers must be severed. When this > happens, the SE will typically release all the state configured by > the controller. > >you might make clear that one or more static partitions of the SE >may not be affected by the change(s) and hence would not be >disturbed. e.g. one could have an SE with O(10^3) partitions and >only be mucking with a few. > >--- > >as requirement three allows starvation, this needs to be mentioned >in sec cons > >--- > >sec cons says > > Only authorized PMs MUST be allowed to dynamically repartition a > SE > >etc. but there is no hint of security relationships. are SEs >statically bound to PMs and vice verse? > >--- > >what are the implications of a requirements document having ipr? > > > > _______________________________________________ GSMP mailing list GSMP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gsmp
- [GSMP] [Fwd: IESG comments on draft-ietf-gsmp-dyn… avri doria
- RE: [GSMP] [Fwd: IESG comments on draft-ietf-gsmp… Anderson, Todd A
- [GSMP] RE: [Fwd: IESG comments on draft-ietf-gsmp… avri doria