age-
> From: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Melinda
> Shore
> Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 7:00 PM
> To: opsawg@ietf.org
> Subject: [OPSAWG] Fwd: Alternate Tunnel Encapsulation for Data Frames
> in CAPWAP
>
> Please note that Rajesh is planning to ask
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 8:44 AM
> To: opsawg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Fwd: Alternate Tunnel Encapsulation for Data Frames
> in CAPWAP
>
> We have not yet put out a call for adoption. At this point we're trying to
> get a
> handle on relevance and
We have not yet put out a call for adoption. At this point we're
trying to get a handle on relevance and quality. To that end,
discussion is very useful, statements of support less so.
Melinda
___
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.o
+1, support adoption.
Sheng
From: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Liu Dapeng
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 10:28 AM
To: Melinda Shore
Cc: opsawg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Fwd: Alternate Tunnel Encapsulation for Data Frames in
CAPWAP
Hello all,
The control/data
Hello all,
The control/data channel separation of CAPWAP is a very useful deployment
use case for operators.
In that sense, I support the adoption of this draft and I do not see there
is overlap/conflict with the already adopted CAPWAP extension drafts.
Cheers,
Dapeng Liu
2014-02-19 9:00 GMT+08:0
.
Regards,
Peng
> -Original Message-
> From: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Melinda Shore
> Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 9:00 AM
> To: opsawg@ietf.org
> Subject: [OPSAWG] Fwd: Alternate Tunnel Encapsulation for Data Frames in
> CAPWAP
>
>
Please note that Rajesh is planning to ask for working
group adoption of this document. Please give it a read
and provide feedback on this mailing list. Particularly
interested in the question of how well it meshes with
CAPWAP documents we've already adopted.
Melinda
Original Message
