Re: [Capwap] AD review for draft-ietf-capwap-dhc-ac-option-01
"Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" <pcalhoun@cisco.com> Thu, 26 June 2008 12:23 UTC
Return-Path: <capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD5BD3A6A0E for <ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:23:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.556
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.556 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.043, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4u1vwtL1tFMJ for <ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:23:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 028203A695C for <capwap-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:23:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FCA8432788 for <capwap-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:23:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63A1A440148 for <capwap@lists.tigertech.net>; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:23:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 346F034AC11A for <capwap@frascone.com>; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:23:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net
Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17BB134AC109 for <capwap@frascone.com>; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:23:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean
X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.72 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2)
Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for <capwap@frascone.com>; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:23:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,708,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="83432045"
Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Jun 2008 05:19:37 -0700
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5QCJOMP007592; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:19:24 -0700
Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5QCJOmE025635; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:19:24 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:19:24 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:19:23 -0700
Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDD77C@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A04D21BE9@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Capwap] AD review for draft-ietf-capwap-dhc-ac-option-01
Thread-Index: AcjVSb5m79FCQhzARE6FJVf6UGxbEQCPMzjA
References: <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A04D21BE9@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com>
From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" <pcalhoun@cisco.com>
To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>, capwap@frascone.com
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Jun 2008 12:19:24.0172 (UTC) FILETIME=[DEAFECC0:01C8D786]
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; );
Subject: Re: [Capwap] AD review for draft-ietf-capwap-dhc-ac-option-01
X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions <capwap.frascone.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap>, <mailto:capwap-request@frascone.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap>
List-Post: <mailto:capwap@frascone.com>
List-Help: <mailto:capwap-request@frascone.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap>, <mailto:capwap-request@frascone.com?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com
All, While I have created three separate tracker issues for the issues listed below (108, 109 and 110, respectively), I am comfortable with all of the proposed changes, so I will not bother to create separate threads to track each in the mailing list. I do not believe there are any real technical changes, and even T1 does not change the behavior of the WTP in any meaningful way. So I will mark these three issues as resolved, and will reopen if anyone objects. I don't mind resubmitting these drafts now to avoid receiving the same comments during IETF/IESG review, but will let the chairs decide. PatC -----Original Message----- From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 8:57 AM To: capwap@frascone.com Subject: [Capwap] AD review for draft-ietf-capwap-dhc-ac-option-01 This is the AD review for draft-ietf-capwap-dhc-ac-option-01. The document is quite simple and in good shape. I have only a small number of comments (grouped in Technical and Editorial) which I suggest to treat as Last Call comments. If I do not hear any objections I will send this document to IETF Last Call. Thanks and Regards, Dan T1. In the Security Considerations section the following text looks to me quite weak in describing the implication of the security vulnerabilities of the DHCP-based discovery option: . Therefore, the options defined in this document are not the only methods used to determine which AC a WTP should connect to. It may be better to be more assertive here, on the lines of something like: . Therefore, in security sensitive environments the options defined in this document SHOULD NOT be the only methods used to determine which AC a WTP should connect to. E1. The Intended Status is not mentioned in the document header. Needs to add Intended Status: Proposed Standard (if approved) E2. It is not necessary to use capitalized MUST notation when describing the IANA actions in the IANA considerations section. _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap
- Re: [Capwap] AD review for draft-ietf-capwap-dhc-… Margaret Wasserman
- [Capwap] AD review for draft-ietf-capwap-dhc-ac-o… Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
- Re: [Capwap] AD review for draft-ietf-capwap-dhc-… Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)