I will try to come up with a way to address the MAC move topic. The challenge
is to word it in such a way that it does not imply a new protocol for
communicating such a move (Savi was/is prohibited by charter from doing
protocol development.)
Yours,
Joel
-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Lemon [mailto:Ted(_dot_)Lemon(_at_)nominum(_dot_)com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 10:57 PM
To: Joel Halpern Direct
Cc: Black, David; Joel M. Halpern; McPherson, Danny;
savi(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
gen-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; Jean-Michel
Combes; Joel Halpern
Subject: Re: [savi] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-savi-threat-scope-06
On Mar 27, 2013, at 12:45 PM, Joel Halpern Direct
<jmh(_dot_)direct(_at_)joelhalpern(_dot_)com> wrote:
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.
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.
I think you probably meant "or", not "are", in the second
word of the second-to-last line of the new text.
As far as I am concerned, given that David is happy with your
recent change, I'm happy with it too. However, since you
are asking, if you were willing to also accommodate David's
other request (see below) by adding some text to the document
in section 5, that would be an added bonus:
A paragraph has been added to 5.2.3 to address all three of
the above concerns. I guess that's ok, but I would have
liked to see some text pointing out that a MAC move can be
detected by the switches and used to update SAVI state about
which port(s) a MAC is accessed through.
So if you can do this, it would be much appreciated; if you
can't do it, I think the document is valuable enough to move
forward without this additional work.