IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Tue, 26 March 2013 01:37 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: savi@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: savi@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF3F121F84A9; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 18:37:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9hqbg+v95acw; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 18:37:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og126.obsmtp.com (exprod7og126.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.206]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FDF621F849C; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 18:37:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob126.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUVD78ruWkqholvdmxNNqRhPSYnsidaPD@postini.com; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 18:37:55 PDT
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B34E11B806F; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 18:37:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B23C19005C; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 18:37:54 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com)
Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.132]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 18:37:54 -0700
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>
Thread-Topic: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-savi-threat-scope-06
Thread-Index: AcwRKxLMGPOwf18pRUizv8st+VLKC4QxHuTAABCsJwA=
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 01:37:54 +0000
Message-ID: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B63077511F644@mbx-01.win.nominum.com>
References: <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E055F69357F@MX14A.corp.emc.com> <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE71293AEEDC8@MX15A.corp.emc.com>
In-Reply-To: <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE71293AEEDC8@MX15A.corp.emc.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.10]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <7015540D083D1B41BB2B7299DD9E5DAC@nominum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "McPherson, Danny" <dmcpherson@verisign.com>, "savi@ietf.org" <savi@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, Jean-Michel Combes <jeanmichel.combes@gmail.com>, "joel.halpern@ericsson.com" <joel.halpern@ericsson.com>
Subject: Re: [savi] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-savi-threat-scope-06
X-BeenThere: savi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list for the SAVI working group at IETF <savi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/savi>, <mailto:savi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/savi>
List-Post: <mailto:savi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:savi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/savi>, <mailto:savi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 01:37:57 -0000

On Mar 25, 2013, at 9:04 PM, "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com> 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?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email