Subject: [Capwap] AD review for draft-ietf-capwap-dhc-ac-option-01

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 17:56:48 +0200

This is the AD review for draft-ietf-capwap-dhc-ac-option-01. The
document is quite simple and in good shape. I have only a small number
of comments (grouped in Technical and Editorial) which I suggest to
treat as Last Call comments. If I do not hear any objections I will send
this document to IETF Last Call. 

Thanks and Regards,

Dan

T1. In the Security Considerations section the following text looks to
me quite weak in describing the implication of the security
vulnerabilities of the DHCP-based discovery option:

.  Therefore, the options defined in this
   document are not the only methods used to determine which AC a WTP
   should connect to. 

It may be better to be more assertive here, on the lines of something
like: 

.  Therefore, in security sensitive environments the options defined in
this
   document SHOULD NOT be the only methods used to determine which AC a
WTP
   should connect to. 

E1. The Intended Status is not mentioned in the document header. Needs
to add Intended Status: Proposed Standard (if approved)

E2. It is not necessary to use capitalized MUST notation when describing
the IANA actions in the IANA considerations section. 

_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap

Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 08:51:00 -0400

Sending this document straight to IETF LC makes sense to me.  The  
proposed changes could easily be made along with the resolution to  
any other LC comments.

Margaret

---

From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:19:23 -0700

All,

While I have created three separate tracker issues for the issues listed
below (108, 109 and 110, respectively), I am comfortable with all of the
proposed changes, so I will not bother to create separate threads to
track each in the mailing list. I do not believe there are any real
technical changes, and even T1 does not change the behavior of the WTP
in any meaningful way. So I will mark these three issues as resolved,
and will reopen if anyone objects.

I don't mind resubmitting these drafts now to avoid receiving the same
comments during IETF/IESG review, but will let the chairs decide.

PatC 

-----Original Message-----
From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 8:57 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Capwap] AD review for draft-ietf-capwap-dhc-ac-option-01

Thanks and Regards,

Dan