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

[Joel Halpern Direct <[e-mail]>]

Then it will be done.  I will wait for the AD to decide what other 
changes are needed, and then will either make this change or include it 
in an RFC Editor note.

Thank you,
Joel

On 3/27/2013 12:42 PM, Black, David wrote:
> That would do nicely.
>
> Thanks,
> --David
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 12:30 PM
>> To: Black, David
>> Cc: Ted Lemon; McPherson, Danny; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; gen-
>> [e-mail]; Jean-Michel Combes; [e-mail]
>> 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:[e-mail]]
>>>> Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 9:38 PM
>>>> To: Black, David
>>>> Cc: McPherson, Danny; Fred Baker; [e-mail]; gen-
>> [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?
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> savi mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/savi
>>>
>