Hi Zongpeng, This is an editorial comment. I will try to see how best to address this.
Regards Sri On 6/22/16, 8:27 PM, "Duzongpeng" <[email protected]> wrote: >Hi, Sri > >As I have said before, I generally agree with the current draft. > >What I suggested is just for making the draft less conflict according to >my understanding. > >If you think it has been very clear that GRE tunnel has been introduced, >it is ok for me that you can add a sentence in GRE Key section. > >Tianran has suggested that adding a new section can make it clear that >the position of "GRE Key Element" is after the "Access Router Information >Element" if the tunnel type = 5. I fully agree with that statement. > >Best Regards >Zongpeng Du > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2016 6:41 AM >To: Zhoutianran; Duzongpeng; Warren Kumari; [email protected]; John >Kaippallimalil; Liu Dapeng; Mark Grayson (mgrayson) >Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Start of 2nd WGLC for >draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel > >inline .. > >On 6/21/16, 2:59 AM, "Zhoutianran" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>I think what Zongpeng mean is: >> >>1. Add "GRE" in section 3.2, in the line " This specification provides >>details for this elements for CAPWAP and PMIPv6." >>-->" This specification provides details for this elements for CAPWAP, >>PMIPv6 and GRE." >>Because GRE has already been discussed in this document, and there is >>no need to provide a specific document for GRE. > > >There is no need for additional document for GRE. All the required >information elements including GRE keys are included. Document has >support for GRE tunneling; If there is no support for GRE tunneling, we >would not have discussed about GRE Keys. I don’t think we can have one >more section for GRE. I don’t think we need additional section, but I can >add a sentence in GRE Key section. > > > > > > > > >> >>2. This document have section 3.6.6. to describe the "GRE Key >>Element", but no text to specify where to insert this block. So, he >>suggest a new section 3.6 to specify that the "GRE Key Element" >>information should just follow the "Access Router Information Element". > > > > > >> >> >>Best, >>Tianran >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: OPSAWG [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Duzongpeng >>> Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 3:36 PM >>> To: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave); Warren Kumari; [email protected]; John >>> Kaippallimalil; Liu Dapeng; Mark Grayson (mgrayson) >>> Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Start of 2nd WGLC for >>> draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel >>> >>> Hi, Sri >>> >>> Thank you for your reply. I can repeat the reason. >>> >>> In the current draft, section 3.2 >>> >>> o Info Element: This field contains tunnel specific configuration >>> parameters to enable the WTP to setup the alternate tunnel. This >>> specification provides details for this elements for **CAPWAP and >>> PMIPv6**. This specification reserves the tunnel type values for >>> the key tunnel types and defines the most common message >>>elements. >>> We anticipate that message elements for the other protocols (like >>> L2TPv3, etc) will be defined in other specifications in the >>> future. >>> >>> And my suggestion is that GRE should also be provided. >>> Reason 1: GRE is a widely used and important tunnel type in WiFi >>>network. >>> Reason 2: I used to join in the work of this draft. I think we have >>>taken this GRE type into consideration, but I do not know why it is >>>missing now. >>> I mean that GRE type should not be considered in other drafts as L2TP >>>or IP-IP, and should be considered just as **CAPWAP and PMIPv6** >>>Reason 3: >>> I know that we have that section "3.6.6. GRE Key Element". I think >>>that is just because we have taken this GRE type into consideration. >>>But in current draft, on one hand, it is declared that only **CAPWAP >>>and PMIPv6**'s details are provided; on the other hand, this section >>>3.6.6 provides details of GRE. They conflicts. My suggestion is to >>>add a new section 3.6, and change the declaration to "This >>>specification provides details for this elements for **CAPWAP, >>>PMIPv6, and GRE**" >>> >>> Hope no misunderstanding here. If any problem, please connect me. >>>Thanks. >>> >>> Best Regards >>> Zongpeng Du >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) [mailto:[email protected]] >>> Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 12:15 PM >>> To: Duzongpeng; Warren Kumari; [email protected]; John Kaippallimalil; >>> Liu Dapeng; Mark Grayson (mgrayson) >>> Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Start of 2nd WGLC for >>> draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel >>> >>> Hello Zongpeng, >>> >>> >>> We do have support for the following encapsulation types and we also >>>have a section for the GRE keys. The Access Router information >>>element is already there. So, I don¹t see why we need one more >>>section. >>> >>> Can you clarify what is not clear from the below text ? >>> >>> ‹- >>> o Tunnel-Type: The tunnel type is specified by a 2 byte value. This >>> specification defines the values from zero (0) to five (5) as >>> given below. The remaining values are reserved for future use. >>> >>> * 0: CAPWAP. This refers to a CAPWAP data channel described in >>> [RFC5415][RFC5416]. >>> >>> Zhang, et al. Expires December 10, 2016 [Page >>> 12]Internet-Draft Alternate-- Tunnel June >>>2016 >>> >>> * 1: L2TP. This refers to tunnel encapsulation described in >>> [RFC2661]. >>> >>> * 2: L2TPv3. This refers to tunnel encapsulation described in >>> [RFC3931]. >>> >>> * 3: IP-in-IP. This refers to tunnel encapsulation described in >>> [RFC2003]. >>> >>> * 4: PMIPv6-UDP. This refers to the UDP tunneling encapsulation >>> described in [RFC5844]. >>> >>> * 5: GRE. This refers to GRE tunnel encapsulation as described >>> in [RFC2784]. >>> >>> * 6: GTPv1-U. This refers to GTPv1 user plane mode as described >>> in [TS29281]. >>> >>> ‹- >>> >>> >>> >>> ‹- >>> >>> 3.6.6. GRE Key Element >>> >>> If a WTP receives the GRE Key Element in the Alternate Tunnel >>> Encapsulation message element for GRE selection, the WTP must insert >>> the GRE Key to the encapsulation packet (see [RFC2890]). An AR >>> acting as decapsulating tunnel endpoint identifies packets belonging >>> to a traffic flow based on the Key value. >>> >>> The GRE Key Element field contains a four octet number defined in >>> [RFC2890]. >>> >>> Zhang, et al. Expires December 10, 2016 [Page >>> 19]Internet-Draft Alternate-- Tunnel June >>>2016 >>> >>> 0 1 2 3 >>> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 >>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >>> | GRE Key Element Type | Length | >>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >>> | GRE Key | >>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >>> >>> Figure 15: GRE Key Element >>> >>> GRE Key: The Key field contains a four octet number which is >>>inserted >>> by the WTP according to [RFC2890]. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 3.6.1. Access Router Information Elements >>> >>> >>> Š >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 6/16/16, 5:33 AM, "OPSAWG on behalf of Duzongpeng" >>> <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >Hi, >>> > >>> >Generally, I support the adoption of the draft. >>> > >>> >I have posted a suggestion about adding the GRE tunnel type for the >>> >draft. Will the author consider it? Thanks. >>> > >>> >http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsawg/current/msg04165.html >>> > >>> >Best Regards >>> >Zongpeng Du >>> > >>> > >>> >-----Original Message----- >>> >From: OPSAWG [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Warren >>> >Kumari >>> >Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 2:04 AM >>> >To: [email protected]; John Kaippallimalil; Liu Dapeng; >>> >[email protected] >>> >Subject: [OPSAWG] Start of 2nd WGLC for >>> >draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel >>> > >>> >Dear OpsAWG WG, >>> > >>> >This begins a WGLC for draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel - this >>> >WGLC ends on June 29th. >>> > >>> >This is the second WGLC for this document - it initially >>> >successfully passed WGLC in August 2014 >>> >(https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsawg/current/msg03522.html) >>> >and was handed to the IESG for publication in early September 2014. >>> > >>> >After it was sent to the IESG (in Feb 2015) a very similar draft >>> >appeared >>> >- draft-you-opsawg-capwap-separation-for-mp. We realized that two, >>> >very similar documents, with significant overlap would be confusing, >>> >and so we requested that draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel be >>> >returned to the WG and asked the authors to merge them into one >>> >document. There was some delays, but this has finally been completed. >>> > >>> >The WG is requested to review the document and provide (clear) >>> >feedback on if you believe it is ready for publication. If not, >>> >please provide suggestions for improvement / text. >>> > >>> >Please note: Even if you said it was great on the first WGLC, it is >>> >very useful to repeat this comment now! >>> > >>> >W >>> > >>> > >>> >-- >>> >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 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OPSAWG mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
