Re: [Capwap] FW: review of draft-ietf-capwap-dhc-ac-option-01.txt

["Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" <[e-mail]>]

There are a few changes that were made to -02, which I was asked to deal
with during the RFC publication phase. Here they are:

<text in section 1.0 of -01>
   Prior to the CAPWAP Discovery process, the WTP MAY use one of many
<text in section 1.0 of -02>
   Prior to the CAPWAP Discovery process, the WTP may use one of many 


<text in section 1.2 of -01>
   This document uses terminology defined in [RFC3753] and
<text in section 1.2 of -02>
   This document uses terminology defined in [RFC3753], [RFC2131] and


<text in section 4.0 of -01>
   The following DHCPv4 option code for CAPWAP AC option MUST be
<text in section 4.0 of -02>
   The following DHCPv4 option code for CAPWAP AC option must be

<text in section 5.0 of -01>
   Therefore, the options defined in this
   document are not the only methods used to determine which AC a WTP
   should connect to.  
<text in section 5.0 of -02>
   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.

<text in section 6.0 of -01>
6.  Acknowledgements
<text in section 6.0 of -02>
6.  Acknowledgments


<text in Author's Address of -01>
   Phone: [phone]
<text in Author's Address of -02>
   Phone: [phone]

Does that address your question (or probably even more than what you
asked)?

PatC
-----Original Message-----
From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 6:46 AM
To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [Capwap] FW: review of
draft-ietf-capwap-dhc-ac-option-01.txt

Pat,

There was no new version since then, and the document is now in IESG
review. I suggest that we include these in the notes to the RFC Editor -
can you let me know exactly where the pointers to 2131 and 3735 would
fit? 

Thanks and Regards,

Dan
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 4:19 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [Capwap] FW: review of
> draft-ietf-capwap-dhc-ac-option-01.txt
> 
> Here is what I did with Francis' comments:
> 
> >  - the first general question is about references to DHCP:
> >   * the whole document, including the Abstract, assumes the reader
> >    already knows what is DHCP. I have no concern about this but
> perhaps
> >    I should? I propose to keep this point closed until someone else
> raises it
> >    (so it could enter into the any other LC comments)
> I did not address this given no one else raised it during LC.
> 
> > 
> >   * 1.2 (Terminology) is only about CAPWAP, IMHO even you
> don't abuse
> of
> >    DHCP specific terms it is a good place to add DHCP
> references (the
> >    three at the beginning of the Security Considerations for
> instance).
> I added a pointer to RFC 2131 and RFC 3735 in the Terminology section
> 
> > 
> >  - the second question is about the use (or abuse) of 2119
> keywords at
> >    unusual places, namely in the Introduction (i.e., before the 2119
> >    reference) and in the IANA Considerations. But it is only a
> question
> >    of usage/style...
> Yes, this was addressed
> 
> > 
> >  - in TOC and section 6: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments
> 
> After figuring out that I have been misspelling the word all this time

> (well, maybe I should say I never realized Canadians spelled it 
> differently from US, even after being here for over 10 years), yes I 
> fixed it.
> 
> PatC
> > 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 3:15 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: [Capwap] FW: review of draft-ietf-capwap-dhc-ac-option-01.txt
> 
> Have Francis' comments been answered? 
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 11:27 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Subject: review of draft-ietf-capwap-dhc-ac-option-01.txt
> 
> I have been selected as the General Area Review Team
> (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please 
> see http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
> 
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments 
> you may receive.
> 
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-capwap-dhc-ac-option-01.txt
> Reviewer: Francis Dupont
> Review Date: 2008-07-10
> IETF LC End Date: 2008-07-14
> IESG Telechat date: unknown
> 
> Summary: Ready with nits
> 
> Comments: I have two general questions and the usual editioral things 
> (here editorial means they can be handled by the RFC Editor):
> 
>  - the first general question is about references to DHCP:
>   * the whole document, including the Abstract, assumes the reader
>    already knows what is DHCP. I have no concern about this but 
> perhaps
>    I should? I propose to keep this point closed until someone else 
> raises it
>    (so it could enter into the any other LC comments)
> 
>   * 1.2 (Terminology) is only about CAPWAP, IMHO even you don't abuse 
> of
>    DHCP specific terms it is a good place to add DHCP references (the
>    three at the beginning of the Security Considerations for 
> instance).
> 
>  - the second question is about the use (or abuse) of 2119 keywords at
>    unusual places, namely in the Introduction (i.e., before the 2119
>    reference) and in the IANA Considerations. But it is only a 
> question
>    of usage/style...
> 
>  - in TOC and section 6: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments
> 
> Regards
> 
> [e-mail]
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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