Hi, Adam Roach and Ben Campbell
Thank you for proposing the problems.
About the lawful intercept, I have made a wrong correction.
We can delete it instead of my correction in the last email.
Old:
The tunneling requirement
may be driven by the need to apply policy at the AC or a legal
requirement to support lawful intercept of user traffic.
New:
The tunneling requirement
may be driven by the need to apply policy at the AC.
And I do not think remove it cause any problem to the draft.
If no objections, I will update the draft accordingly.
If any future problems, please connect me. Thanks.
Best Regards
Zongpeng Du
-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Roach [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 2:54 PM
To: The IESG <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; Tianran Zhou
<[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; Tianran
Zhou <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-11:
(with COMMENT)
Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-11: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email
addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory
paragraph, however.)
Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have run out of time to fully review this document before the telechat, and
it is sufficiently outside my area of expertise that I do not believe that the
input I could provide is valuable enough to warrant deferring.
However, I want to put a fine point on Ben's comment ("ยง1, 3rd paragraph after
figure 1: We should avoid using lawful intercept as a justification for
protocol mechanisms.") The IETF has a long-established policy in this area,
summarized in RFC 2804 as: "The IETF has decided not to consider requirements
for wiretapping as part of the process for creating and maintaining IETF
standards."
If you can remove the mention of lawful intercept from this document and the
justification for the described configuration still makes sense (as I believe
it does), please do so. If you think that the removal of lawful intercept from
this section tangibly changes the rationale for the design described in this
document, please let me know, and I'll change my position to DISCUSS while we
figure out what needs to happen.
Thanks!
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
