[Fwd: IESG comments on draft-ietf-gsmp-dyn-part-reqs]

Hi Folks,

We have gotten comments back from the IESG on the Partitining 
Requirements ID.
I would like to see comments on the list from the participants of the WG 
and
especially from the authors in repsonse to these issues.  

As I understand it, we can then fix the draft and/or send our repsonse 
to each of
the questions back to the IESG.

a.

ps. i have some personal responses, but will send them in time to the 
list as part
of the, hoefully, ongoing discussion.  


Scott Bradner wrote:

>can you take this to the WG list?
>
>Scott
>
>------
>From: Randy Bush <[email protected]>
>To: iesg <[email protected]>
>Subject: draft-ietf-gsmp-dyn-part-reqs-02.txt
>Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 10:37:40 -0700
>
>   o Requirements for the Dynamic Partitioning of Switching Elements 
>     (Informational)   
>           <draft-ietf-gsmp-dyn-part-reqs-02.txt>
>
>are SEs only layer 2, or can a virtual router be an SE?
>
>---
>
>microsoftisms in the text
>
>---
>
>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 three allows starvation, 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?
>
>
>  
>