Hi Warren, This draft has a tight relation to the working group document, "draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel². Its true the new document clearly spells out the MVNO use-case more clearly and defines a error code. But I¹m not convinced we enable the larger use-case in one document and have error code in some other document. I think this should be combined and have one quality document and not publish 10 documents for the same use-case of Alt-Tunnel configuration delivery; One document covering single instance and another document covering multi-instance. It makes no sense to me. As such most of the authors are both the documents except one author Youjianhie.
My recommendation is to fold this text into the other document and have Youjianjie as a co-author and move forward. I think we should have one quality document and that¹s my motivation. Regards Sri On 6/25/15, 6:04 AM, "OPSAWG on behalf of Warren Kumari" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: >Dear OpsAWG WG, > >The authors of draft-you-opsawg-capwap-separation-for-mp have asked >for this draft to be considered for OpsAWG adoption. It was presented >and discussed somewhat at IETF91 in Dallas - there was a question >raised about similarities / overlap with >draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel (which lies with the IESG). After >some discussions we have decided that these documents complement each >other, and so ask the WG to consider >draft-you-opsawg-capwap-separation-for-mp for adoption. > >We would like 4-5 people to commit to editing and contributing to the >document, and a similar number to commit to reviewing it. > >The draft is available here: >https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-you-opsawg-capwap-separation-for-mp >/ > >Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for >adoption by OpsAWG, >and comments to the list, clearly stating your view. > >Please also indicate if you are willing to contribute text, review, etc. > >This call for adoption ends Thu 09-Jul-2015. > >In addition, to satisfy RFC 6702 ("Promoting Compliance with >Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)"): >If you are personally aware of any IPR that applies to >draft-you-opsawg-capwap-separation-for-mp, 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) > > >-- >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
