On Mar 25, 2013, at 9:04 PM, "Black, David"
<david(_dot_)black(_at_)emc(_dot_)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?