Re: [Capwap] AD review for draft-ietf-capwap-dhc-ac-option-01

Sending this document straight to IETF LC makes sense to me.  The  
proposed changes could easily be made along with the resolution to  
any other LC comments.

Margaret

On Jun 23, 2008, at 11:56 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:

> 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