Hi, I have reviewed this draft and think that the problem and descriptions are clear.
A couple of comments: 1. In Section 2.1, Alternate tunnel failure handling description is good. However it does not describe what happens to alternate tunnel if there is a CAPWAP control channel keep alive failure. A sentence to clarify this would be good. 2. In section 3, A general note that the message elements correspond to RFC 5415, section 4.6 (CAPWAP Protocol Message Elements). This would make it easier to read. With these (mainly 1) addressed, I think the draft is ready. John > -----Original Message----- > From: OPSAWG [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Warren > Kumari > Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 9:45 AM > To: [email protected]; draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt- > [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt- > tunnel > > On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Warren Kumari <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Dear OpsAWG WG, > > > > The authors of draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel have indicated > that > > they believe that the document is ready, and have asked for Working > > Group Last Call[0]. > > > > The draft is available here: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel/ > > > > Please review this draft to see if you think it is ready for > > publication and send comments to the list, clearly stating your view. > > > > This WGLC ends Mon 25-Aug-2014. > > One week has passed, and I haven't seen any feedback / review. > This document is 12 pages, 8 if you remove the boilerplate / > whitespace. Much if the rest of it is diagrams and such. It is, IMO, a > quick and easy read, shouldn't take more than 10-15 minutes. > > Go on, try it. You might like it... > > W > > > > > > > > > > > In addition, to satisfy RFC 6702 "Promoting Compliance with > > Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)": > > Are you personally aware of any IPR that applies to > > draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel? If so, has this IPR been > > disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules? > > (See RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669, and 5378 for more details.) > > > > > > Thanks, > > Warren Kumari > > (as OpsAWG WG co-chair) > > > > [0]: Actually, they asked a while back, but it slipped through the > cracks. > > > > -- > I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad > idea in the first place. > This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing > regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of > pants. > ---maf > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
