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