Re: [OPSAWG] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-11: (with COMMENT)
Duzongpeng <duzongpeng@huawei.com> Thu, 25 January 2018 08:54 UTC
Return-Path: <duzongpeng@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2EBA12D943; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 00:54:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.23
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.23 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U-D8ttHGf9wm; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 00:54:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 249A012D868; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 00:54:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from LHREML712-CAH.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 7D226A695599D; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 08:54:41 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML411-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.70) by LHREML712-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.361.1; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 08:54:42 +0000
Received: from NKGEML514-MBX.china.huawei.com ([fe80::40a8:f0d:c0f3:2ca5]) by nkgeml411-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.70]) with mapi id 14.03.0361.001; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 16:54:30 +0800
From: Duzongpeng <duzongpeng@huawei.com>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel@ietf.org>, Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>, "warren@kumari.net" <warren@kumari.net>, "opsawg-chairs@ietf.org" <opsawg-chairs@ietf.org>, Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>, "opsawg@ietf.org" <opsawg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-11: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHTlalDH2rOASfYzUyGJ7cxrWLgk6OER4HA
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 08:54:30 +0000
Message-ID: <BAFEC9523F57BC48A51C20226A55895764823A50@nkgeml514-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <151686322193.15916.7801462152516155573.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <151686322193.15916.7801462152516155573.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.149.226]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/MNqzQqzaxsij7NWVq7bcpUW3Fjw>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-11: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List <opsawg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/opsawg/>
List-Post: <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 08:54:48 -0000
Hi, Adam Roach and Ben Campbell Thank you for proposing the problems. About the lawful intercept, I have made a wrong correction. We can delete it instead of my correction in the last email. Old: The tunneling requirement may be driven by the need to apply policy at the AC or a legal requirement to support lawful intercept of user traffic. New: The tunneling requirement may be driven by the need to apply policy at the AC. And I do not think remove it cause any problem to the draft. If no objections, I will update the draft accordingly. If any future problems, please connect me. Thanks. Best Regards Zongpeng Du -----Original Message----- From: Adam Roach [mailto:adam@nostrum.com] Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 2:54 PM To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org> Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel@ietf.org; Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>; warren@kumari.net; opsawg-chairs@ietf.org; Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>; opsawg@ietf.org Subject: Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-11: (with COMMENT) Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-11: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I have run out of time to fully review this document before the telechat, and it is sufficiently outside my area of expertise that I do not believe that the input I could provide is valuable enough to warrant deferring. However, I want to put a fine point on Ben's comment ("§1, 3rd paragraph after figure 1: We should avoid using lawful intercept as a justification for protocol mechanisms.") The IETF has a long-established policy in this area, summarized in RFC 2804 as: "The IETF has decided not to consider requirements for wiretapping as part of the process for creating and maintaining IETF standards." If you can remove the mention of lawful intercept from this document and the justification for the described configuration still makes sense (as I believe it does), please do so. If you think that the removal of lawful intercept from this section tangibly changes the rationale for the design described in this document, please let me know, and I'll change my position to DISCUSS while we figure out what needs to happen. Thanks!