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.le...@nominum.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 10:57 PM > To: Joel Halpern Direct > Cc: Black, David; Joel M. Halpern; McPherson, Danny; > s...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; gen-...@ietf.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.dir...@joelhalpern.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. > >
