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 OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
