draft-ietf-gsmp-dyn-part-reqs-03.txt

[Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>]

this is a returning document, though it is not flagged as such <boo
hiss>.  my comments at the last review are appended.  i would note
that it is not clear to me that the ****d ones have been addressed.

randy

------------------------------------------------


From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: iesg <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: draft-ietf-gsmp-dyn-part-reqs-02.txt
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 14:17:47 -0400

****

are SEs only layer 2, or can a virtual router be an SE?

---

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

---

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.

---

****

as requirement 3 allows starvation of resources such as cpu,
perhaps this needs to be mentioned in sec cons

---

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?

---

what are the implications of a requirements document having ipr?

---

microsoftisms in the text, at least as apostrophes

randy