returning ID for thursday call

[Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>]

this is a returning document that I've asked to be put on the IESG agenda
for thursday

Scott

---------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 16:55:37 -0500
From: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>,
   Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>
Subject: request: draft-ietf-gsmp-dyn-part-reqs-03.txt to Informational

Please reconsider publication of:
Requirements for the Dynamic Partitioning of Switching Elements 

<draft-ietf-gsmp-dyn-part-reqs-03.txt>
as an Informational RFC.

It is my belief that we have taken care of the comments and
of the nits.

The Draft has been through a successful second WG last call.

Specific replies to the IESG comments below:

--

Q. IESG Evaluation  Comment:2002-10-03 - iesg discussion - comment to WG
are SEs only layer 2, or can a virtual router be an SE?

A. Since support for ForCES is not covered in the current
requirements, no.  If ForCES support were to be added to the
GSMP charter then the answer would be yes.

---

Comment: microsoftisms in the text

A: oops.  Fixed.

---

Comment: in intro para 2, the enumeration omits the case where a single
logical SE or controller might be implemented by multiple devices

A: Further information was adding of more possibilities for SEs.  This is
now in Para 3.

---

COMMENT: in the discussion

   Dynamic Partitioning

   Static repartitioning of a SE can be a costly and inefficient
   process.  First, before static repartitioning can take place, all
   existing connections with controllers must be severed.  When this
   happens, the SE will typically release all the state configured by
   the controller.

you might make clear that one or more static partitions of the SE
may not be affected by the change(s) and hence would not be
disturbed.  e.g. one could have an SE with O(10^3) partitions and
only be mucking with a few.


A. The text has been added to cover this point.

---

COMMENT: as requirement three allows starvation, this needs to be mentioned
in sec cons

A: Requirement 8 was added to disallow for the possibility of starvation.

---

COMMENT: sec cons says

   Only authorized PMs MUST be allowed to dynamically repartition a
   SE

etc.  but there is no hint of security relationships.  are SEs
statically bound to PMs and vice verse?

A: Text has been added to indicate how the relationships between
PM CE/SE can be established.

---

COMMENT: what are the implications of a requirements document having ipr?

A. We couldn't figure out how and so removed the statement.


Thanks
a.