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

Would it suffice to replace
Old:
    If the bridging topologies which connects the switches changes, or
    if LACP [IEEE802.3ad] changes which links are used to deliver
    traffic, the switch may need to move the SAVI state to a different
    port, are the state may need to be moved or reestablished on a
    different switch.
New:
    If the bridging topologies which connects the switches changes, or
    if LACP [IEEE802.3ad], VRRP, or other link management
    operations, change which links are used to deliver
    traffic, the switch may need to move the SAVI state to a different
    port, are the state may need to be moved or reestablished on a
    different switch.
?

Proposed changes on the second - fourth lines above.
Yours,
Joel

On 3/26/2013 7:45 PM, Black, David wrote:
> 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:Ted.Lemon@nominum.com]
>> Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 9:38 PM
>> To: Black, David
>> Cc: McPherson, Danny; Fred Baker; joel.halpern@ericsson.com; gen-art@ietf.org;
>> Jean-Michel Combes; savi@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-savi-threat-scope-06
>>
>> 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?
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> savi mailing list
> savi@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/savi
>