That would do nicely. Thanks, --David > -----Original Message----- > From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 12:30 PM > To: Black, David > Cc: Ted Lemon; McPherson, Danny; savi@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; gen- > art@xxxxxxxx; Jean-Michel Combes; joel.halpern@xxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [savi] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-savi-threat-scope-06 > > 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.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? > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > savi mailing list > > savi@xxxxxxxx > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/savi > >