Re: [OPSAWG] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-08: (with COMMENT)
Duzongpeng <duzongpeng@huawei.com> Wed, 26 October 2016 02:38 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 1D93C129692; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 19:38:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.652
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.652 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, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.431, SPF_PASS=-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 L-Qf4FYWTFB7; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 19:38:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A79F126FDC; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 19:37:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml702-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id CZA28448; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 02:37:56 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML413-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.74) by lhreml702-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.99) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.235.1; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 03:37:55 +0100
Received: from NKGEML514-MBX.china.huawei.com ([fe80::40a8:f0d:c0f3:2ca5]) by NKGEML413-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.74]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 10:37:50 +0800
From: Duzongpeng <duzongpeng@huawei.com>
To: Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [OPSAWG] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-08: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHSLVJYeC+4qtlae0OdJkEz5yBSFqC6Bo+A
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 02:37:50 +0000
Message-ID: <BAFEC9523F57BC48A51C20226A5589575FE5CCF5@nkgeml514-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <147724345399.15955.5426739479458655058.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <147724345399.15955.5426739479458655058.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="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020205.58101705.0045, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 35878f88acdb009641ed1b8e0c623d61
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/TuUbx255mkUJ_ecvQIdO5g7BDZM>
Cc: "draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel@ietf.org>, "opsawg-chairs@ietf.org" <opsawg-chairs@ietf.org>, "opsawg@ietf.org" <opsawg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-08: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 02:38:02 -0000
Hi, Alexey, I agree with your comments. Some clarifications as below. +1 to Katleen's comment about optional data channel protection. [duzongpeng] I agree that security issues should be considered more in the draft. But I think it is resolvable as said in my another email. [duzongpeng] In 3.3. IEEE 802.11 WTP Alternate Tunnel Failure Indication Length == 4, but should it be >4 due to IPv4/IPv6 address at the end? [duzongpeng] I agree. Perhaps the authors can correct it. [duzongpeng] Best Regards Zongpeng Du -----Original Message----- From: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alexey Melnikov Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 1:24 AM To: The IESG Cc: opsawg-chairs@ietf.org; draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org Subject: [OPSAWG] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-08: (with COMMENT) Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-08: 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 to Katleen's comment about optional data channel protection. In 3.3. IEEE 802.11 WTP Alternate Tunnel Failure Indication Length == 4, but should it be >4 due to IPv4/IPv6 address at the end? _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
- [OPSAWG] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [OPSAWG] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on dr… Duzongpeng