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

That would do nicely.

Thanks,
--David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 12:30 PM
> To: Black, David
> Cc: Ted Lemon; McPherson, Danny; savi@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; gen-
> art@ietf.org; Jean-Michel Combes; joel.halpern@ericsson.com
> Subject: 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
> >