Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC for draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-10

From: Tianran Zhou <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 02:59:15 +0000

Hi WG,

This call is concluded without objection on the revision.
Let's move forward to IESG.

Thanks,
Tianran

> -----Original Message-----
> From: OPSAWG [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Tianran Zhou
> Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 2:05 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: [OPSAWG] WG LC for draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-10
> 
> Dear OPSAWG,
> 
> The following draft was sent to IESG, but received some critical comments.
> 
> Alternate Tunnel Encapsulation for Data Frames in CAPWAP
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-10
> 
> Now the authors have addressed all the comments, and received confirmation
> from the Security DIR reviewer.
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-
> 09-secdir-early-meadows-2017-08-10/
> 
> This is a notice to start a two-week OPSAWG WG last call review for the
> document.
> Please read the above draft and send any issues, comments, or corrections
> to this mailing list.
> Please indicate your support or concerns by Wednesday Oct 4, 2017.
> 
> Please note that the authors decided to change the document type to
> Experimental, as stated below:
> 1.3.  History of the document
>    This document was started to accommodate Service Provider's need of a
>    more flexible deployment mode with alternative tunnels [RFC7494].
>    Experiments and tests have been done for this alt-tunnel network
>    infrastructure.  However important, the deployment of relevant
>    technology is yet to complete.  This experimental document is
>    intended to serve as a historical reference for any future work as to
>    the operational and deployment requirements.
> 
> Thanks,
> Tianran, as co-chair
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg