Hi Andreas, Thanks for the review comments. We plan to incorporate this review comments in the next rev. We will work with you on the resolution for these issues.
Regards Sri -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Review of "Alternate Tunnel Encapsulation for Data Frames in CAPWAP" - draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 12:05:29 +0100 From: Andreas Schultz <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>, Warren Kumari <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>, <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> CC: Dorothy Stanley <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> Hi, On 02/17/2016 11:36 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > Hi, > > I have reviewed the previous versions of this document. I do not find > significant changes in the content since. I believe that it’s ready > for publication. The comments in https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsawg/current/msg04161.html have not yet been addressed. Having written those comment, I obviously feel that there should be some changes made before publication. Regards Andreas > AFAIK the document was also reviewed by IEEE 802.11. I am copying the Dorothy > Stanley who is the liaison manager, as I do not know if she is > subscribed to the WG mail list. > > Regards, > > Dan > > *From:*OPSAWG [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Warren Kumari > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 17, 2016 12:31 AM > *To:* [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > *Subject:* [OPSAWG] Review of "Alternate Tunnel Encapsulation for Data Frames > in CAPWAP" - draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel > > Dear OpsAWG, > > While we have lots of energy / interest, we'd appreciate some additional > review of draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel > (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel/ > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dopsawg-2Dcapwap-2Dalt-2Dtunnel_&d=BQMFaQ&c=BFpWQw8bsuKpl1SgiZH64Q&r=I4dzGxR31OcNXCJfQzvlsiLQfucBXRucPvdrphpBsFA&m=YSTTTzZjDjD_fxRDbZTWgW6tBrwOadoMW7MP4RRFFdQ&s=ZuwP2TZyReJXmH8tHtt8Bg0SDGvmX2_un8TtmJU5sQI&e=><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dopsawg-2Dcapwap-2Dalt-2Dtunnel_&d=BQMFaQ&c=BFpWQw8bsuKpl1SgiZH64Q&r=I4dzGxR31OcNXCJfQzvlsiLQfucBXRucPvdrphpBsFA&m=YSTTTzZjDjD_fxRDbZTWgW6tBrwOadoMW7MP4RRFFdQ&s=ZuwP2TZyReJXmH8tHtt8Bg0SDGvmX2_un8TtmJU5sQI&e=> > ). > > This document has an interesting history - it completed WGLC in 2014-08-27 > and was submitted to be published as an RFC on 2014-09-08. > > We then got draft-you-opsawg-capwap-separation-for-mp, which had some some > significant similarities. We asked the ADs to hold alt-tunnel > while we discussed what to do, and then finally asked the ADs / IESG to > return it to the WG so that these two documents could be merged into > one ( https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsawg/current/msg04071.html > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mail-2Darchive_web_opsawg_current_msg04071.html&d=BQMFaQ&c=BFpWQw8bsuKpl1SgiZH64Q&r=I4dzGxR31OcNXCJfQzvlsiLQfucBXRucPvdrphpBsFA&m=YSTTTzZjDjD_fxRDbZTWgW6tBrwOadoMW7MP4RRFFdQ&s=59ocMkJDZW_0tPUy9QccyjIc81Yjqe5RhjgrCX0aG8M&e=><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mail-2Darchive_web_opsawg_current_msg04071.html&d=BQMFaQ&c=BFpWQw8bsuKpl1SgiZH64Q&r=I4dzGxR31OcNXCJfQzvlsiLQfucBXRucPvdrphpBsFA&m=YSTTTzZjDjD_fxRDbZTWgW6tBrwOadoMW7MP4RRFFdQ&s=59ocMkJDZW_0tPUy9QccyjIc81Yjqe5RhjgrCX0aG8M&e=> > ). > > This document has already passed one WGLC (module the minor merging), andwe > are waiting on the authors to address some comments (e.g: > https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsawg/current/msg04161.html > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mail-2Darchive_web_opsawg_current_msg04161.html&d=BQMFaQ&c=BFpWQw8bsuKpl1SgiZH64Q&r=I4dzGxR31OcNXCJfQzvlsiLQfucBXRucPvdrphpBsFA&m=YSTTTzZjDjD_fxRDbZTWgW6tBrwOadoMW7MP4RRFFdQ&s=Y24UHv4v54xg7rgWKHivf8xbeORWBYd3sjg6SJg1t2w&e=><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mail-2Darchive_web_opsawg_current_msg04161.html&d=BQMFaQ&c=BFpWQw8bsuKpl1SgiZH64Q&r=I4dzGxR31OcNXCJfQzvlsiLQfucBXRucPvdrphpBsFA&m=YSTTTzZjDjD_fxRDbZTWgW6tBrwOadoMW7MP4RRFFdQ&s=Y24UHv4v54xg7rgWKHivf8xbeORWBYd3sjg6SJg1t2w&e=> > ) > and update the email addresses - once that happens we will do another WGLC -- > but, while we are waiting, we'd appreciate any other review > and feedback. > > W > > > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg . .
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
