Subject: [OPSAWG] Start of 2nd WGLC for draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 14:03:45 -0400

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

---

From: Duzongpeng <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 12:33:27 +0000

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-masked]] On Behalf Of Warren Kumari
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 2:04 AM
To: [email-masked]; John Kaippallimalil; Liu Dapeng; [email-masked]
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-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

---

From: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 04:15:06 +0000

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-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

>I have posted a suggestion about adding the GRE tunnel type for the
>draft. Will the author consider it? Thanks.
>
>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.
>
>regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of
>pants.
>   ---maf
>

---

From: Duzongpeng <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 07:35:31 +0000

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-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 12:15 PM
To: Duzongpeng; Warren Kumari; [email-masked]; 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.

‹-

‹-

‹-

3.6.6.  GRE Key Element

    0                   1                   2                   3

Š

On 6/16/16, 5:33 AM, "OPSAWG on behalf of Duzongpeng"
<[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

>appeared
>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.
>

---

From: Zhoutianran <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 09:59:47 +0000

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.

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

> From: OPSAWG [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Duzongpeng
> Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 3:36 PM
> To: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave); Warren Kumari; [email-masked]; John
> Kaippallimalil; Liu Dapeng; Mark Grayson (mgrayson)
> 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**"
> 
> a section for the GRE keys. The Access Router information element is already
> there. So, I don¹t see why we need one more section.
>

---

From: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 22:41:14 +0000

inline ..

On 6/21/16, 2:59 AM, "Zhoutianran" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>1. Add "GRE" in section 3.2, in the line " This specification provides
>details for this elements for CAPWAP and PMIPv6."
>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".

>>already

---

From: Duzongpeng <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 03:27:13 +0000

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-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2016 6:41 AM
To: Zhoutianran; Duzongpeng; Warren Kumari; [email-masked]; 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-masked]> wrote:

>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".

>> 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**"
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> >- 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.
>> >
>> >feedback on if you believe it is ready for publication. If not, 
>> >please provide suggestions for improvement / text.
>> >
>> >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
>> >

---

From: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 03:53:03 +0000

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-masked]> wrote:

>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
>
>
>To: Zhoutianran; Duzongpeng; Warren Kumari; [email-masked]; John
>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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>