Hello I realized there was a typographical error in my response below. Please see corrections.
Regards Rajesh From: Rajesh Pazhyannur <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Thursday, November 20, 2014 at 12:30 AM To: "Benoit Claise (bclaise)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel and draft-xue-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-information relationship Hi Benoit But now I wonder: why do we have two different drafts, as opposed to a single one? This is a good question. [original] Yes, you are correct that draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel does not provide a complete solution and needs something like draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel to complete the solution. [corrected statement] Yes, you are correct that draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel does not provide a complete solution and needs something like draft-xue-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-information to complete the solution. The best answer I have is that we wanted the keep the following two areas separate (and in different drafts) 1. Discover and negotiation of alternate tunneling capability. These are independent of specific alternate tunnel method 2. [original] Definition of tunnel specific message elements. While draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel contains message elements for most of the tunneling methods defined in draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel, I had anticipated separate drafts for each tunneling protocol. [corrected] 2 Definition of tunnel specific message elements. While draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel contains message elements for most of the tunneling methods defined in draft-xue-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-information I had anticipated separate drafts for each tunneling protocol. Finishing 1. would allow 2. to be completed separately and independently in potentially different drafts (and potentially different groups with relevant expertise). It is somewhat akin (though not identical) to separation between RFC 5415 and RFC 5416 where RFC 5415 is wireless technology independent and RFC 5416 is 802.11 specific. Hope the above makes sense. Regards Rajesh From: "Benoit Claise (bclaise)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 at 11:50 AM To: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: [OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel and draft-xue-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-information relationship Dear CAPWAP authors, After the draft-xue-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-information presentation at the last IETF meeting, I've been wondering about the relationship between the two drafts: - draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel provides the tunnel types Note:this draft is currently in AD review, so close to be sent to the IESG. - draft-xue-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-information provides the encoding of the tunnel-specific fields. I believe I'm correct that the draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel doesn't provide a complete solution without draft-xue-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-information? I'm aware of the changes between version 3 and 4 (attached picture and http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-04.txt) [cid:[email protected]] But now I wonder: why do we have two different drafts, as opposed to a single one? Regards, Benoit
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
