On 03/12/2014 08:59, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote:
> Hi Benoit,
>
> > Let me propose a solution: augment 
> draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel with the information elements for 
> CAPWAP (not the others one).
>
> The above draft defines number of encapsulation modes and that list 
> includes, CAPWAP, L2TPv2, L2TPv3, IP-in-IP, PMIPv6, GREv4 and 
> GREv6. Each of those tunnel types can be activated with a set of 
> tunnel parameters. These parameters include source IP, destination IP, 
> sport, dport, GRE key ..etc. To most part this is about identifying a 
> common set of parameters, providing definition for those parameters 
> and grouping the relevant one's for each of the encapsulation modes. 
> Taking GREv4, GREv6, IP-in-IP or PMIP (uses GRE), each are not 
> radically different from the others and the above common parameter set 
> is sufficient for these modes.  To create a tunnel with GRE with IPv4 
> transport is not any different from GRE with IPv6 transport, or for 
> that matter for IP-in-IP mode.
>
> It is to be noted there are no proposed changes to any of these 
> encapsulation modes, or to the control protocols activating those 
> encap modes. Its mostly about activating a tunnel state with a set of 
> parameters.  If at all, CAPWAP data plane may be bit complex and even 
> L2TP as its unclear if the control protocol has semantics for the L2TP 
> peers to separate control and data plane. If not, it requires changes 
> to the L2TP protocol. So, its easier to keep CAPWAP + GRE/IP-in-IP 
> modes in the main spec as the work has a well defined scope.
If it works for the WG, it works for me. Any objections anybody?
That would imply a new draft and a new consensus call.

Regards, Benoit
>
> So, my suggestion is to allow draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel  to 
> also support GRE/IP-in-IP modes and have draft-xue focus exclusively 
> on L2TP extensions and move it on a fast track. IMO, this is a 
> reasonably split.  I'm also happy to provide the text for the above 
> encap modes and ensure the changes do not delay the publication.
>
> Regards
> Sri
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: "Benoit Claise (bclaise)" <bclaise@cisco.com 
> <mailto:bclaise@cisco.com>>
> Date: Monday, December 1, 2014 7:37 AM
> To: "Rajesh Pazhyannur (rpazhyan)" <rpazhyan@cisco.com 
> <mailto:rpazhyan@cisco.com>>, 
> "draft-xue-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-information@tools.ietf.org 
> <mailto:draft-xue-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-information@tools.ietf.org>" <draft-xue-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-information@tools.ietf.org 
> <mailto:draft-xue-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-information@tools.ietf.org>>, 
> "draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel@tools.ietf.org 
> <mailto:draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel@tools.ietf.org>" 
> <draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel@tools.ietf.org 
> <mailto:draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel@tools.ietf.org>>
> Cc: "opsawg@ietf.org <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>" <opsawg@ietf.org 
> <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>>
> Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel and 
> draft-xue-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-information relationship
>
> Hi Rajesh,
>
> I'm concerned that:
> - draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel does not provide a complete solution
> - draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel requires the encoding from 
> draft-xue-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-information, an individual draft.
> - draft-xue-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-information covers 6 different 
> tunnel types, and required expertise from many different group. This 
> might take some time...
>
> Let me propose a solution: augment draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel 
> with the information elements for CAPWAP (not the others one). This 
> way, this draft would be a complete solution.
> And if people wants alternate tunnel types, this would be done in 
> draft-xue-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-information
>
> Regards, Benoit/
> //
> /
>> Hello
>>
>> I realized there was a typographical error in my response below.
>> Please see corrections.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Rajesh
>> From: Rajesh Pazhyannur <rpazhyan@cisco.com <mailto:rpazhyan@cisco.com>>
>> Date: Thursday, November 20, 2014 at 12:30 AM
>> To: "Benoit Claise (bclaise)" <bclaise@cisco.com 
>> <mailto:bclaise@cisco.com>>, 
>> "draft-xue-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-information@tools.ietf.org 
>> <mailto:draft-xue-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-information@tools.ietf.org>" 
>> <draft-xue-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-information@tools.ietf.org 
>> <mailto:draft-xue-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-information@tools.ietf.org>>, 
>> "draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel@tools.ietf.org 
>> <mailto:draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel@tools.ietf.org>" 
>> <draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel@tools.ietf.org 
>> <mailto:draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel@tools.ietf.org>>
>> Cc: "opsawg@ietf.org <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>" <opsawg@ietf.org 
>> <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>>
>> 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] Y/es, 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)" <bclaise@cisco.com 
>> <mailto:bclaise@cisco.com>>
>> Date: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 at 11:50 AM
>> To: "draft-xue-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-information@tools.ietf.org 
>> <mailto:draft-xue-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-information@tools.ietf.org>" 
>> <draft-xue-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-information@tools.ietf.org 
>> <mailto:draft-xue-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel-information@tools.ietf.org>>, 
>> "draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel@tools.ietf.org 
>> <mailto:draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel@tools.ietf.org>" 
>> <draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel@tools.ietf.org 
>> <mailto:draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-alt-tunnel@tools.ietf.org>>
>> Cc: "opsawg@ietf.org <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>" <opsawg@ietf.org 
>> <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>>
>> 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)
>>
>> But now I wonder: why do we have two different drafts, as opposed to 
>> a single one?
>>
>> Regards, Benoit
>>
>>
>
> .