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

["Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[e-mail]>]

Yes, this is what I was looking for (and more). If there is no opposed
view I suggest that we make these part of the RFC Editor notes already.
I can do the change in the tracker. 

Dan
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 6:03 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [Capwap] FW: review of 
> draft-ietf-capwap-dhc-ac-option-01.txt
> 
> 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