Re: [savi] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-savi-threat-scope-06

[Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>]

I think I can add text to address this. I will look more closely tomorrow, and send you a proposal.
Thank you for all your efforts reviewing this.

Yours,
Joel

Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)

-----Original Message-----
From: Black, David [[e-mail]]
Received: Tuesday, 26 Mar 2013, 7:45pm
To: Ted Lemon [[e-mail]]
CC: McPherson, Danny [[e-mail]]; Fred Baker [[e-mail]]; Joel Halpern [[e-mail]]; [e-mail] [[e-mail]]; Jean-Michel Combes [[e-mail]]; [e-mail] [[e-mail]]; [e-mail] [[e-mail]]
Subject: RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-savi-threat-scope-06

Ted,

> Remembering that this is an informational draft, which does a pretty good job
> of informing the reader about the problem space, is it your opinion that the
> issues you have raised _must_ be addressed before the document is published,
> or do you think the document is still valuable even if no further text is
> added to address your concern?

At a minimum, in section 4.1.2, this should be addressed:

b) the new text implies that LACP is the only way to cause this situation - it's
        not, so LACP should be used as an example.

I'm not sure I've seen Fred's response, but that change would suffice.  An RFC
Editor note should suffice.

Thanks,
--David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ted Lemon [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 9:38 PM
> To: Black, David
> Cc: McPherson, Danny; Fred Baker; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> Jean-Michel Combes; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-savi-threat-scope-06
>
> On Mar 25, 2013, at 9:04 PM, "Black, David" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Summary: This draft is on the right track, but has open issues, described in
> the review.
>
> While I identified the same issue you did with switching systems that do link
> aggregation and other magic, I think that the document is useful whether this
> is fixed or not.  It's true that it doesn't have a full section that talks
> specifically about this problem, but I think it's unlikely that the authors
> are going to add one-when I mentioned it to Joel, he didn't express excitement
> at the prospect.
>
> I think Fred's response, while a little salty, accurately represents the
> situation: the working group produced this document, the document does what
> it's supposed to do, one could continue to polish it indefinitely, but then
> the document would never get published.
>
> Remembering that this is an informational draft, which does a pretty good job
> of informing the reader about the problem space, is it your opinion that the
> issues you have raised _must_ be addressed before the document is published,
> or do you think the document is still valuable even if no further text is
> added to address your concern?
>