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

"Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com> Mon, 23 June 2008 15:57 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 0C7AB3A69D4 for <ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 08:57:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.635
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.635 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.964, 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 kY3R0lWR-aR2 for <ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 08:57:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21D7A3A6A29 for <capwap-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 08:57:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91CD91C40F6D for <capwap-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 08:57:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B42594401A0 for <capwap@lists.tigertech.net>; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 08:56:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7E8634AC0D6 for <capwap@frascone.com>; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 08:56:57 -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 4D23234AC022 for <capwap@frascone.com>; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 08:56:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean
X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral)
Received: from nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com (nj300815-nj-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.12.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for <capwap@frascone.com>; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 08:56:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,690,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="124523148"
Received: from unknown (HELO nj300815-nj-erheast.avaya.com) ([198.152.6.5]) by nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 23 Jun 2008 11:56:50 -0400
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,690,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="215918459"
Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by nj300815-nj-erheast-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 23 Jun 2008 11:56:50 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 17:56:48 +0200
Message-ID: <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A04D21BE9@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: AD review for draft-ietf-capwap-dhc-ac-option-01
Thread-Index: AcjVSb5m79FCQhzARE6FJVf6UGxbEQ==
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
To: capwap@frascone.com
Subject: [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

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