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