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.Lemon@xxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 9:38 PM > To: Black, David > Cc: McPherson, Danny; Fred Baker; joel.halpern@xxxxxxxxxxxx; gen-art@xxxxxxxx; > Jean-Michel Combes; savi@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-savi-threat-scope-06 > > On Mar 25, 2013, at 9:04 PM, "Black, David" <david.black@xxxxxxx> 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? >