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

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Thu, 25 January 2018 06:53 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
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, zhoutianran@huawei.com, opsawg@ietf.org
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <151686322193.15916.7801462152516155573.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 22:53:41 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/XtKyhzzH4bejfsDs1Ctc7JN99Pk>
Subject: [OPSAWG] 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!

[OPSAWG] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-… Adam Roach
Re: [OPSAWG] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-i… Duzongpeng