Hi Rajesh,
I'm concerned that:
- draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel does not provide a complete solution
- draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel requires the encoding from
draft-xue-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-information, an individual draft.
- draft-xue-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-information covers 6 different
tunnel types, and required expertise from many different group. This
might take some time...
Let me propose a solution: augment draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel
with the information elements for CAPWAP (not the others one). This way,
this draft would be a complete solution.
And if people wants alternate tunnel types, this would be done in
draft-xue-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-information
Regards, Benoit/
//
/
Hello
I realized there was a typographical error in my response below.
Please see corrections.
Regards
Rajesh
From: Rajesh Pazhyannur <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Thursday, November 20, 2014 at 12:30 AM
To: "Benoit Claise (bclaise)" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>,
"[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>,
"[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel and
draft-xue-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-information relationship
Hi Benoit
But now I wonder: why do we have two different drafts, as opposed to a
single one?
This is a good question.
[*original*] Yes, you are correct that
draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel does not provide a complete
solution and needs something like
*draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel* to complete the solution.
[corrected statement] Y/es, you are correct that
draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel does not provide a complete
solution and needs something like
*draft-xue-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-information* to complete the
solution. /
The best answer I have is that we wanted the keep the following two
areas separate (and in different drafts)
1. Discover and negotiation of alternate tunneling capability. These
are independent of specific alternate tunnel method
2. [*original*] Definition of tunnel specific message elements. While
draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel contains message elements for
most of the tunneling methods defined in
*draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel*, I had anticipated separate
drafts for each tunneling protocol.
/[corrected] 2 Definition of tunnel specific message elements. While
draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel contains message elements for most
of the tunneling methods defined in
*draft-xue-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-information* I had anticipated
separate drafts for each tunneling protocol./
Finishing 1. would allow 2. to be completed separately and
independently in potentially different drafts (and potentially
different groups with relevant expertise). It is somewhat akin (though
not identical) to separation between RFC 5415 and RFC 5416 where RFC
5415 is wireless technology independent and RFC 5416 is 802.11 specific.
Hope the above makes sense.
Regards
Rajesh
From: "Benoit Claise (bclaise)" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 at 11:50 AM
To: "[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>,
"[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: [OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel and
draft-xue-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-information relationship
Dear CAPWAP authors,
After the draft-xue-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-information presentation
at the last IETF meeting, I've been wondering about the relationship
between the two drafts:
- draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel provides the tunnel types
Note:this draft is currently in AD review, so close to be sent to
the IESG.
- draft-xue-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-information provides the encoding
of the tunnel-specific fields.
I believe I'm correct that the draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel
doesn't provide a complete solution without
draft-xue-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-information?
I'm aware of the changes between version 3 and 4 (attached picture and
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-04.txt)
But now I wonder: why do we have two different drafts, as opposed to a
single one?
Regards, Benoit
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
