[OPSAWG] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-11: (with COMMENT)

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

Ben Campbell 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

-1, 3rd paragraph after figure 1: We should avoid using lawful intercept as a
justification for protocol mechanisms.

-1.3: Serving as an "archival record" seems like an odd use of "experimental".
That sounds more "informational" to me.

-7: I agree with Kathleen's comments about the security considerations.

Editorial Comments and Nits:

- The abbreviations that were expanded in the abstract should be expanded again
on the body.

-1, paragraph after figure 1: Missing article before the first occurrence of
"CAPWAP".

-1.3, first sentence: " Service Provider's " should either be " Service
Providers' " or "the Service Provider's

-2, 3rd paragraph after figure 5: Missing article before WTP (multiple
occurrences).