I think I can add text to address this. I will look more closely tomorrow, and
send you a proposal.
Thank you for all your efforts reviewing this.
Yours,
Joel
Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)
-----Original Message-----
From: Black, David [david.bl...@emc.com]
Received: Tuesday, 26 Mar 2013, 7:45pm
To: Ted Lemon [ted.le...@nominum.com]
CC: McPherson, Danny [dmcpher...@verisign.com]; Fred Baker [f...@cisco.com];
Joel Halpern [joel.halp...@ericsson.com]; gen-...@ietf.org [gen-...@ietf.org];
Jean-Michel Combes [jeanmichel.com...@gmail.com]; s...@ietf.org
[s...@ietf.org]; ietf@ietf.org [ietf@ietf.org]
Subject: RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-savi-threat-scope-06
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.le...@nominum.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 9:38 PM
> To: Black, David
> Cc: McPherson, Danny; Fred Baker; joel.halp...@ericsson.com; gen-...@ietf.org;
> Jean-Michel Combes; s...@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.bl...@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?
>
