From diameter-admin@frascone.com Sun May 1 05:16:46 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA06480 for ; Sun, 1 May 2005 05:16:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12B05204B7 for ; Sun, 1 May 2005 05:16:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D6C82058B for ; Sun, 1 May 2005 05:16:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 01 May 2005 05:16:37 -0400 Message-ID: <20050501091637.30077.39943.Mailman@xavier> Subject: frascone.com mailing list memberships reminder From: mailman-owner@wolverine.cnri.reston.va.us To: capwap-archive@ietf.org X-No-Archive: yes X-Ack: no Sender: diameter-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: diameter-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: diameter@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) This is a reminder, sent out once a month, about your frascone.com mailing list memberships. It includes your subscription info and how to use it to change it or unsubscribe from a list. You can visit the URLs to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. In addition to the URL interfaces, you can also use email to make such changes. For more info, send a message to the '-request' address of the list (for example, capwap-request@frascone.com) containing just the word 'help' in the message body, and an email message will be sent to you with instructions. If you have questions, problems, comments, etc, send them to mailman-owner@wolverine. Thanks! Passwords for capwap-archive@lists.ietf.org: List Password // URL ---- -------- capwap@frascone.com xakour http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/options/capwap/capwap-archive%40lists.ietf.org From amazone@emailaccount.com Sun May 1 06:30:41 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA12118; Sun, 1 May 2005 06:30:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from host50.foretec.com ([65.246.255.50] helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DSBw8-0003fL-6L; Sun, 01 May 2005 06:44:38 -0400 Received: from [213.231.97.38] (helo=38.red-213-231-97.user.auna.net) by mx2.foretec.com with smtp (Exim 4.24) id 1DSBic-0004W8-P9; Sun, 01 May 2005 06:30:35 -0400 Delivered-To: brunt@cobble.dreamhost.com Received: from commemorate.dreamhost.com by consist.dreamhost.com (Pingofix) with ESMTP id 1CC3A04D5B for ; Sun, 01 May 2005 15:25:21 +0400 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 01 May 2005 10:27:21 -0100 From: "Leslie Hare" To: Subject: Approved mortage rate X-Mailer: Mailman v2.0.3 X-SpamTest-Info: Profile: Formal (167/041115) X-SpamTest-Info: Profile: Detect Hard No RBL (4/030571) X-Spam-Score: 3.4 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3 Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.h0us1ng.com/sign.asp Best Regards, Emmett Parson to be remov(ed: http://www.h0us1ng.com/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From capwap-admin@frascone.com Sun May 1 14:05:06 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA05730 for ; Sun, 1 May 2005 14:05:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7243D20319; Sun, 1 May 2005 14:05:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70FB1203E0; Sun, 1 May 2005 14:05:02 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB2F020392 for ; Sun, 1 May 2005 14:04:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from linus.cisco.com (dhcp-171-71-133-24.cisco.com [171.71.133.24]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8605320319 for ; Sun, 1 May 2005 14:04:34 -0400 (EDT) From: David Frascone To: capwap@frascone.com Subject: Re: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate Message-ID: <20050501130415.489de099@linus.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 1.0.4 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) X-Face: BZe8R&S)}GEDsLp@ay#IT{'D/X6}Xu/])^zA7D2W{)kwVA7)IhgW*{QSX6W(\BWhSON`p7% e3xQ1oJ=Qb@cQf#x[_Qas)'1f0;9DQJ>02}F_!.`'y>LE~`8e'{XO=fNX{n#\1:s:`Xy Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 1 May 2005 13:04:15 -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit draft-singh-capwap-ctp-01.txt no draft-iino-capwap-wicop-00.txt no draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-00.txt no draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt yes -- David Frascone Tubby or not tubby, fat is the question! _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Sun May 1 18:36:08 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA21949 for ; Sun, 1 May 2005 18:36:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66ACF204C3; Sun, 1 May 2005 18:36:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 504FF20429; Sun, 1 May 2005 18:36:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3F182045E for ; Sun, 1 May 2005 18:35:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com (sj-iport-4.cisco.com [171.68.10.86]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85FC7203E0 for ; Sun, 1 May 2005 18:35:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com (171.68.223.137) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 May 2005 15:35:09 -0700 Received: from mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com [171.71.163.14]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j41MZ7b4008096; Sun, 1 May 2005 15:35:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rsuriwxp01 (rtp-vpn3-690.cisco.com [10.82.218.181]) by mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com (MOS 3.4.5-GR) with ESMTP id BEJ35749; Sun, 1 May 2005 15:35:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200505012235.BEJ35749@mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com> From: "Rohit Suri" To: "'Mani, Mahalingam (Mahalingam)'" , Subject: RE: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000C_01C54E63.59CB1F20" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 Thread-Index: AcVJ7bJV6k9FTsR+TMafVCsl7YcMFgEsCYhw X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 In-Reply-To: X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 1 May 2005 15:35:05 -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C54E63.59CB1F20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 1. draft-singh-capwap-ctp-01.txt yes 2. draft-iino-capwap-wicop-00.txt yes 3. draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-00.txt no 4. draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt yes Regards Rohit _____ From: capwap-admin@frascone.com [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] On Behalf Of Mani, Mahalingam (Mahalingam) Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 4:23 PM To: capwap@frascone.com Subject: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate Importance: High Dear all in WG: We have 4 protocols submitted to the WG for consideration. Evaluating each protocol is quite some effort. So we should be sure we want to undertake that work. The WG chairs would like to hear/gauge WG consensus as to which protocols the WG wants to evaluate against the objectives. We do not ask for extensive or repeated argumentation. We prefer a simple yes/no answer. These are the protocols that have been submitted. 1. draft-singh-capwap-ctp-01.txt yes/no 2. draft-iino-capwap-wicop-00.txt yes/no 3. draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-00.txt yes/no 4. draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt yes/no So, do send a simple response to the list with the above 4 lines in the body with your yes/no answer. And we need this no later than by May 5th. It is important that as many WG participants express their opinion so that we can properly gauge consensus as opposed to being forced to decide on a small number of opinions. Thanks, WG chairs & AD ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C54E63.59CB1F20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 1.=20 draft-singh-capwap-ctp-01.txt       &n= bsp;=20 yes

 2.=20 draft-iino-capwap-wicop-00.txt        = yes

 3.=20 draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-00.txt   =20 no

 4.=20 draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt      =20 yes

 

Regards

Rohit


From: capwap-admin@frascone.com=20 [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] On Behalf Of Mani, Mahalingam=20 (Mahalingam)
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 4:23 = PM
To:=20 capwap@frascone.com
Subject: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to=20 evaluate
Importance: High

Dear all in=20 WG:

 

We = have 4=20 protocols submitted to the WG for = consideration.

Evaluating each=20 protocol is quite some effort. So we should

be = sure we want=20 to undertake that work. The WG chairs would

like to=20 hear/gauge WG consensus as to which protocols = the

WG = wants to=20 evaluate against the objectives.

 =20

We = do not ask=20 for extensive or repeated argumentation.

We = prefer a=20 simple yes/no answer.

 

These are the=20 protocols that have been submitted.

 =20

  1.=20 draft-singh-capwap-ctp-01.txt       &n= bsp;=20 yes/no

  2.=20 draft-iino-capwap-wicop-00.txt        = yes/no

 =20 3.=20 draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-00.txt   =20 yes/no

 =20 4.=20 draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt      =20 yes/no

 

So, = do send a=20 simple response to the list with the above 4 = lines

in = the body=20 with your yes/no answer. And we need this no later=20 than

by = May=20 5th.

 

It = is important=20 that as many WG participants express their = opinion

so = that we can=20 properly gauge consensus as opposed to being = forced

to = decide on a=20 small number of opinions.

 

Thanks,

WG = chairs &=20 AD

 

------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C54E63.59CB1F20-- _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Mon May 2 09:20:07 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA15876 for ; Mon, 2 May 2005 09:20:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87B56205CA; Mon, 2 May 2005 09:20:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3015A205BF; Mon, 2 May 2005 09:20:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DC8B205BC for ; Mon, 2 May 2005 09:19:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from carrierpigeon.cs.umd.edu (carrierpigeon.cs.umd.edu [128.8.129.58]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8B3F205B9 for ; Mon, 2 May 2005 09:19:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ismene (ismene.cs.umd.edu [128.8.126.62]) by carrierpigeon.cs.umd.edu (8.12.10/8.12.5) with ESMTP id j42DJltS017960 for ; Mon, 2 May 2005 09:19:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Charles Clancy X-X-Sender: clancy@ismene To: capwap@frascone.com Subject: Re: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate In-Reply-To: <20050501130415.489de099@linus.cisco.com> Message-ID: References: <20050501130415.489de099@linus.cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 09:16:18 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) draft-singh-capwap-ctp-01.txt yes draft-iino-capwap-wicop-00.txt yes draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-00.txt yes draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt yes [ t. charles clancy ]--[ tcc@umd.edu ]--[ www.cs.umd.edu/~clancy ] [ computer science ]-----[ university of maryland | college park ] _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Mon May 2 11:46:07 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA27349 for ; Mon, 2 May 2005 11:46:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFC3E205C1; Mon, 2 May 2005 11:46:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAE1820511; Mon, 2 May 2005 11:46:02 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDCF020511 for ; Mon, 2 May 2005 11:45:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2-in.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14EB2204FF for ; Mon, 2 May 2005 11:45:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (171.71.177.254) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 May 2005 08:45:48 -0700 Received: from mira-sjc5-e.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@mira-sjc5-e.cisco.com [171.71.163.15]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j42FjhKx015664 for ; Mon, 2 May 2005 08:45:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ncamwingw2k02 (dhcp-171-71-133-114.cisco.com [171.71.133.114]) by mira-sjc5-e.cisco.com (MOS 3.4.5-GR) with ESMTP id AYN28686; Mon, 2 May 2005 08:45:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200505021545.AYN28686@mira-sjc5-e.cisco.com> From: "Nancy Winget" To: Subject: Re: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4939.300 Thread-Index: AcVPLgDZOzGXAtaUTSqDee76s8jQ2A== X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 08:45:45 -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 1. draft-singh-capwap-ctp-01.txt yes 2. draft-iino-capwap-wicop-00.txt yes 3. draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-00.txt no 4. draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt yes Nancy. _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Mon May 2 12:53:05 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA03671 for ; Mon, 2 May 2005 12:53:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95427205BF; Mon, 2 May 2005 12:53:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34DB920462; Mon, 2 May 2005 12:53:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F49A20462 for ; Mon, 2 May 2005 12:52:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from homebrew.trpz.com (66-7-225-40.cust.telepacific.net [66.7.225.40]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CF50203E1 for ; Mon, 2 May 2005 12:52:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from trpz.com (localhost.trpz.com [127.0.0.1]) by homebrew.trpz.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j42Go46Q089585; Mon, 2 May 2005 09:50:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dharkins@trpz.com) Message-Id: <200505021650.j42Go46Q089585@homebrew.trpz.com> To: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" Cc: capwap@frascone.com Subject: Re: [Capwap] RE: SLAPP and IETF DS Interoperability Requirement ( was: Re: [Cap wap] Comments on objectives draft) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 23 Apr 2005 12:36:34 +0200." <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B15506AD773F@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <89583.1115052604.1@trpz.com> From: Dan Harkins X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 09:50:04 -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Bert, No I don't think that's the case. An image not booting correctly is a special case of a failure to find an AC. If there are no (appropriate) ACs to be found then the WTP keeps looking. This is not different than other protocols, like LWAPP. If an LWAPP-capable WTP thought it found a good LWAPP-capable AC but it failed to be properly provisioned it would start searching for another AC. The WTP is completely controlled by the AC. Booting another image would not solve a problem unless it also saved an old working config somewhere and decided to not be a CAPWAP WTP anymore. That may be a nice vendor addition but I don't think it's part of CAPWAP. Dan. On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 12:36:34 +0200 you wrote > So every WTP has to keep at least one backup of a working image > and have logic to fall back to that if the just downloaded > image fails to boot? > > Bert > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: capwap-admin@frascone.com [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com]On > > Behalf Of Dan Harkins > > Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 08:11 > > To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) > > Cc: capwap@frascone.com > > Subject: Re: [Capwap] RE: SLAPP and IETF DS Interoperability > > Requirement > > (was: Re: [Cap wap] Comments on objectives draft) > > > > > > The state machine transitions back to the discovery phase > > and the WTC > > tries to find a different AC. > > > > Dan. > > > > On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 22:30:12 +0200 you wrote > > > Mmmm.... inline > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: capwap-admin@frascone.com > > [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com]On > > > > Behalf Of Dan Harkins > > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 18:29 > > > > To: Bob O'Hara > > > > Cc: capwap@frascone.com > > > > Subject: Re: SLAPP and IETF DS Interoperability > > Requirement (was: Re: > > > > [Capwap] Comments on objectives draft) > > > > > > > > > > > > Bob, > > > > > > > > The -01 version of SLAPP accomplishes "provisioning > > 802.11 access > > > > points to provide WLAN Service" through the downloading > > of a bootable > > > > image onto the AP. The AP boots that image and is provisioned by a > > > > control protocol contained there. > > > > > > And if that image fails to reboot properly? > > > What happens then? > > > > > > > The technique described by > > > > SLAPP does, indeed, end up provisioning the AP to provide > > WLAN service > > > > and examples of this exist today. > > > > > > > > Dan. > > > > > > > Bert > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Capwap mailing list > > > Capwap@frascone.com > > > http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > _______________________________________________ > > Capwap mailing list > > Capwap@frascone.com > > http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > > _______________________________________________ > Capwap mailing list > Capwap@frascone.com > http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Mon May 2 13:23:07 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06066 for ; Mon, 2 May 2005 13:23:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5794B20537; Mon, 2 May 2005 13:23:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5916620462; Mon, 2 May 2005 13:23:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9025820462 for ; Mon, 2 May 2005 13:22:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from homebrew.trpz.com (66-7-225-40.cust.telepacific.net [66.7.225.40]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85444203E1 for ; Mon, 2 May 2005 13:22:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from trpz.com (localhost.trpz.com [127.0.0.1]) by homebrew.trpz.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j42HKgCC089688 for ; Mon, 2 May 2005 10:20:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dharkins@trpz.com) Message-Id: <200505021720.j42HKgCC089688@homebrew.trpz.com> To: capwap@frascone.com Subject: Re: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <89686.1115054442.1@trpz.com> From: Dan Harkins X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 10:20:42 -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) There is merit in each one of these and it would be a shame to see any of them eliminated from consideration: draft-singh-capwap-ctp-01.txt yes draft-iino-capwap-wicop-00.txt yes draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-00.txt yes draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt yes Dan. _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Mon May 2 19:23:05 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA29392 for ; Mon, 2 May 2005 19:23:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C928B20506; Mon, 2 May 2005 19:23:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40E452041B; Mon, 2 May 2005 19:23:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDC1C2041B for ; Mon, 2 May 2005 19:22:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from WNIMAIL.WoodsideNet.Com (wnifwl.woodsidenet.com [65.192.186.2]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D74B1FDEB for ; Mon, 2 May 2005 19:21:58 -0400 (EDT) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate Message-ID: <3FFBC907DD03A34CA4410C5C745DEB12064D94D5@wnimail.WoodsideNet.Com> Thread-Topic: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate Thread-Index: AcVPO5u5unvGnOB8RneufAgezw+FbwAMbcLQ From: "Paul Lambert" To: X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 16:21:48 -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20 draft-singh-capwap-ctp-01.txt yes draft-iino-capwap-wicop-00.txt yes draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-00.txt yes draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt yes Each of the above proposals have pieces of technology that should be considered. All of them have limitations (some more than others :-) Paul _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Mon May 2 20:24:10 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA04474 for ; Mon, 2 May 2005 20:24:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC21120568; Mon, 2 May 2005 20:24:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48A9220506; Mon, 2 May 2005 20:24:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAF9E20506 for ; Mon, 2 May 2005 20:23:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mgw-x2.nokia.com (mgw-x2.nokia.com [131.228.20.22]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D1F8204AE for ; Mon, 2 May 2005 20:23:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from esdks001.ntc.nokia.com (esdks001.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.138.120]) by mgw-x2.nokia.com (Switch-2.2.8/Switch-2.2.8) with ESMTP id j430NEM02953; Tue, 3 May 2005 03:23:14 +0300 (EET DST) X-Scanned: Tue, 3 May 2005 03:23:04 +0300 Nokia Message Protector V1.3.34 2004121512 - RELEASE Received: (from root@localhost) by esdks001.ntc.nokia.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id j430N4UA010238; Tue, 3 May 2005 03:23:04 +0300 Received: from mgw-int1.ntc.nokia.com (172.21.143.96) by esdks001.ntc.nokia.com 00BcJJu0; Tue, 03 May 2005 03:23:03 EEST Received: from esebh004.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh004.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.138.84]) by mgw-int1.ntc.nokia.com (Switch-2.2.8/Switch-2.2.8) with ESMTP id j430MrM02991; Tue, 3 May 2005 03:22:53 +0300 (EET DST) Received: from esebh006.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.88]) by esebh004.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6881); Tue, 3 May 2005 03:22:53 +0300 Received: from daebh101.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.241.35.111]) by esebh006.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6881); Tue, 3 May 2005 03:22:52 +0300 Received: from mvebe101.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.19.64.23]) by daebh101.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Mon, 2 May 2005 19:22:45 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C54F76.399FD927" Subject: RE: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate Message-ID: <893AE265F4ADF94AB7FB26D31A788E410C112E@mvebe101.NOE.Nokia.com> Thread-Topic: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate Thread-Index: AcVJ7bJV6k9FTsR+TMafVCsl7YcMFgAEmSHwAAAJYjAAAKhL4AFcLrVA From: To: , , Cc: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 May 2005 00:22:45.0418 (UTC) FILETIME=[3A6240A0:01C54F76] X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 17:22:44 -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C54F76.399FD927 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Paul- =20 The result of this poll gives us the individual protocols that we will = evaluate as a *baseline* protocol for CAPWAP WG item. From there we can = update and change mechanisms as with any WG item. =20 =20 This poll is meant to determine that all protocols selected for = evaluation meet the scope and charter of the WG. =20 If one protocol is not accepted for evaluation as a baseline protocol, = certainly portions of that protocol can be submitted to the WG to better = address the objectives. Once we have a baseline CAPWAP protocol as a WG = item, we can update or add sections as needed. =20 Regards, Dorothy =20 =20 -----Original Message----- From: capwap-admin@frascone.com [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com]On = Behalf Of ext Paul Lambert Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 6:55 PM To: Yang, Lily L; capwap@frascone.com Subject: RE: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate What if we don't like any of them? Can we mix and match sections from = each? =20 Paul _____ =20 From: capwap-admin@frascone.com [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] On = Behalf Of Yang, Lily L Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 6:36 PM To: capwap@frascone.com Subject: RE: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate 1. draft-singh-capwap-ctp-01.txt yes 2. draft-iino-capwap-wicop-00.txt yes 3. draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-00.txt yes 4. draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt yes =20 Lily _____ =20 From: capwap-admin@frascone.com [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] On = Behalf Of Mani, Mahalingam (Mahalingam) Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 4:23 PM To: capwap@frascone.com Subject: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate Importance: High =20 Dear all in WG: =20 We have 4 protocols submitted to the WG for consideration. Evaluating each protocol is quite some effort. So we should be sure we want to undertake that work. The WG chairs would like to hear/gauge WG consensus as to which protocols the WG wants to evaluate against the objectives.=20 =20 We do not ask for extensive or repeated argumentation. We prefer a simple yes/no answer. =20 These are the protocols that have been submitted.=20 =20 1. draft-singh-capwap-ctp-01.txt yes/no 2. draft-iino-capwap-wicop-00.txt yes/no 3. draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-00.txt yes/no 4. draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt yes/no =20 So, do send a simple response to the list with the above 4 lines in the body with your yes/no answer. And we need this no later than by May 5th. =20 It is important that as many WG participants express their opinion so that we can properly gauge consensus as opposed to being forced to decide on a small number of opinions. =20 Thanks, WG chairs & AD =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C54F76.399FD927 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi=20 Paul-
 
The=20 result of this poll gives us the individual protocols that we will = evaluate as a=20 *baseline* protocol for CAPWAP WG item.  From there we can update = and=20 change mechanisms as with any WG item.  
 
This=20 poll is meant to determine that all protocols selected for evaluation = meet the=20 scope and charter of the WG.
 
If one=20 protocol is not accepted for evaluation as a baseline=20 protocol, certainly portions of that protocol can be = submitted to the=20 WG to better address the objectives.  Once we have a baseline = CAPWAP=20 protocol as a WG item, we can update or add sections as=20 needed.
 
Regards,
Dorothy
 
 
 -----Original = Message-----
From:=20 capwap-admin@frascone.com [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com]On Behalf = Of=20 ext Paul Lambert
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 6:55=20 PM
To: Yang, Lily L; capwap@frascone.com
Subject: = RE:=20 [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate

What if we don't like any of them?  Can we = mix and=20 match sections from each?
 
Paul

From: capwap-admin@frascone.com=20 [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] On Behalf Of Yang, Lily=20 L
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 6:36 PM
To:=20 capwap@frascone.com
Subject: RE: [Capwap] Selecting = Protocols to=20 evaluate

  1.=20 = draft-singh-capwap-ctp-01.txt       &n= bsp;=20 yes

  2.=20 = draft-iino-capwap-wicop-00.txt        = yes

  = 3.=20 draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-00.txt   =20 yes

  = 4.=20 draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt      =20 yes

 

Lily

From:=20 capwap-admin@frascone.com [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] On Behalf Of Mani, Mahalingam=20 (Mahalingam)
Sent: = Monday,=20 April 25, 2005 4:23 PM
To:=20 capwap@frascone.com
Subject:=20 [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate
Importance: = High

 

Dear all in=20 WG:

 

We have 4 = protocols=20 submitted to the WG for consideration.

Evaluating each = protocol=20 is quite some effort. So we should

be sure we want = to=20 undertake that work. The WG chairs would

like to = hear/gauge WG=20 consensus as to which protocols the

WG wants to = evaluate=20 against the objectives.

 =20

We do not ask = for=20 extensive or repeated argumentation.

We prefer a = simple yes/no=20 answer.

 

These are the = protocols=20 that have been submitted.

 =20

  1.=20 = draft-singh-capwap-ctp-01.txt       &n= bsp;=20 yes/no

  2.=20 = draft-iino-capwap-wicop-00.txt        = yes/no

  = 3.=20 draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-00.txt   =20 yes/no

  = 4.=20 draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt      =20 yes/no

 

So, do send a = simple=20 response to the list with the above 4 = lines

in the body with = your=20 yes/no answer. And we need this no later = than

by May=20 5th.

 

It is important = that as=20 many WG participants express their = opinion

so that we can = properly=20 gauge consensus as opposed to being = forced

to decide on a = small=20 number of opinions.

 

Thanks,

WG chairs &=20 AD

 

------_=_NextPart_001_01C54F76.399FD927-- _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Mon May 2 20:34:07 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA05305 for ; Mon, 2 May 2005 20:34:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18B672058A; Mon, 2 May 2005 20:34:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46E8420506; Mon, 2 May 2005 20:34:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0E9820506 for ; Mon, 2 May 2005 20:33:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from wanderer.mr.itd.umich.edu (wanderer.mr.itd.umich.edu [141.211.93.146]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3575204AE for ; Mon, 2 May 2005 20:33:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [10.10.10.111] (mail.greenfieldnetworks.com [64.220.152.74]) by wanderer.mr.itd.umich.edu (smtp) with ESMTP id j430Xkrj000751 for ; Mon, 2 May 2005 20:33:46 -0400 Message-ID: <4276C6E3.8040807@umich.edu> From: subrata goswami User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: capwap@frascone.com Subject: Re: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate References: <893AE265F4ADF94AB7FB26D31A788E410C112E@mvebe101.NOE.Nokia.com> In-Reply-To: <893AE265F4ADF94AB7FB26D31A788E410C112E@mvebe101.NOE.Nokia.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 17:33:39 -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit i do not remember seeing how the result of the votes will be evaluated. can anyone throw some light on this please ? dr. subrata goswami Dorothy.Gellert@nokia.com wrote: > Hi Paul- > > The result of this poll gives us the individual protocols that we will > evaluate as a *baseline* protocol for CAPWAP WG item. From there we > can update and change mechanisms as with any WG item. > > This poll is meant to determine that all protocols selected for > evaluation meet the scope and charter of the WG. > > If one protocol is not accepted for evaluation as a baseline > protocol, certainly portions of that protocol can be submitted to the > WG to better address the objectives. Once we have a baseline CAPWAP > protocol as a WG item, we can update or add sections as needed. > > Regards, > Dorothy > > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* capwap-admin@frascone.com > [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com]*On Behalf Of *ext Paul Lambert > *Sent:* Monday, April 25, 2005 6:55 PM > *To:* Yang, Lily L; capwap@frascone.com > *Subject:* RE: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate > > What if we don't like any of them? Can we mix and match sections from > each? > > Paul > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* capwap-admin@frascone.com > [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] *On Behalf Of *Yang, Lily L > *Sent:* Monday, April 25, 2005 6:36 PM > *To:* capwap@frascone.com > *Subject:* RE: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate > > 1. draft-singh-capwap-ctp-01.txt yes > > 2. draft-iino-capwap-wicop-00.txt yes > > 3. draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-00.txt yes > > 4. draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt yes > > > > Lily > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* capwap-admin@frascone.com > [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] *On Behalf Of *Mani, Mahalingam > (Mahalingam) > *Sent:* Monday, April 25, 2005 4:23 PM > *To:* capwap@frascone.com > *Subject:* [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate > *Importance:* High > > > > Dear all in WG: > > > > We have 4 protocols submitted to the WG for consideration. > > Evaluating each protocol is quite some effort. So we should > > be sure we want to undertake that work. The WG chairs would > > like to hear/gauge WG consensus as to which protocols the > > WG wants to evaluate against the objectives. > > > > We do not ask for extensive or repeated argumentation. > > We prefer a simple yes/no answer. > > > > These are the protocols that have been submitted. > > > > 1. draft-singh-capwap-ctp-01.txt yes/no > > 2. draft-iino-capwap-wicop-00.txt yes/no > > 3. draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-00.txt yes/no > > 4. draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt yes/no > > > > So, do send a simple response to the list with the above 4 lines > > in the body with your yes/no answer. And we need this no later than > > by May 5th. > > > > It is important that as many WG participants express their opinion > > so that we can properly gauge consensus as opposed to being forced > > to decide on a small number of opinions. > > > > Thanks, > > WG chairs & AD > > > _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Tue May 3 01:38:07 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA08584 for ; Tue, 3 May 2005 01:38:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58ED42053F; Tue, 3 May 2005 01:38:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96D9D204A1; Tue, 3 May 2005 01:38:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED075204A1 for ; Tue, 3 May 2005 01:37:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from aruba-server.arubanetworks.com (mail.arubanetworks.com [216.31.249.253]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D233820458 for ; Tue, 3 May 2005 01:37:51 -0400 (EDT) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6603.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate Thread-Index: AcVJ7bJV6k9FTsR+TMafVCsl7YcMFgDr0lWQAICvnmA= From: "Jon Green" To: X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 22:22:51 -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20 1. draft-singh-capwap-ctp-01.txt yes 2. draft-iino-capwap-wicop-00.txt yes 3. draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-00.txt yes 4. draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt yes _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From szarek@mailAccount.com Tue May 3 07:26:05 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA05550; Tue, 3 May 2005 07:26:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from catv-5062acad.catv.broadband.hu ([80.98.172.173]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DSvlH-00067Y-OK; Tue, 03 May 2005 07:40:26 -0400 Authentication-Results: hall.es from=premium.irrespective.es; domainkeys=neutral (no sig) X-Originating-IP: [184.187.0.248] Received: from premium.buttercup.es (EHLO premium.baudelaire.es) by premium.begonia.es with SMTP; Tue, 03 May 2005 13:21:32 +0100 Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 16:22:32 +0400 From: "Dominick Holland" To: bpana@ietf.org Cc: brenton.daniels@ietf.org, bridge-mib@ietf.org, bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org, business@ietf.org, calsch@ietf.org, cancer@ietf.org, capwap-archive@ietf.org, ccips@ietf.org, cclark@ietf.org, cdi-archive@ietf.org, cdir-admin@ietf.org, cfrg@ietf.org, cfrg-admin@ietf.org, cfrg-archive@ietf.org, cfrg-bounces@ietf.org Subject: Lowest rates in 45 years Message-ID: <119841.3758.szarek@mailAccount.com> X-Mailer: Kana Connect 6 X-Spam-Score: 2.2 (++) X-Scan-Signature: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3 Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.h0us1ng.net/sign.asp Best Regards, Nestor Kent to be remov(ed: http://www.h0us1ng.net/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From capwap-admin@frascone.com Tue May 3 09:26:08 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA16102 for ; Tue, 3 May 2005 09:26:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A28682060D; Tue, 3 May 2005 09:26:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3669920604; Tue, 3 May 2005 09:26:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B70D20608 for ; Tue, 3 May 2005 09:25:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mgw-x2.nokia.com (mgw-x2.nokia.com [131.228.20.22]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29B9320600 for ; Tue, 3 May 2005 09:25:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from esdks004.ntc.nokia.com (esdks004.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.138.159]) by mgw-x2.nokia.com (Switch-2.2.8/Switch-2.2.8) with ESMTP id j43DP3M25208 for ; Tue, 3 May 2005 16:25:03 +0300 (EET DST) X-Scanned: Tue, 3 May 2005 16:22:51 +0300 Nokia Message Protector V1.3.34 2004121512 - RELEASE Received: (from root@localhost) by esdks004.ntc.nokia.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id j43DMpOG018323 for ; Tue, 3 May 2005 16:22:51 +0300 Received: from mgw-int1.ntc.nokia.com (172.21.143.96) by esdks004.ntc.nokia.com 00G8ZJYl; Tue, 03 May 2005 16:20:56 EEST Received: from esebh001.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh001.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.138.28]) by mgw-int1.ntc.nokia.com (Switch-2.2.8/Switch-2.2.8) with ESMTP id j43DKXM26867 for ; Tue, 3 May 2005 16:20:33 +0300 (EET DST) Received: from esebh006.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.88]) by esebh001.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6881); Tue, 3 May 2005 16:20:29 +0300 Received: from daebh102.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.241.35.112]) by esebh006.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6881); Tue, 3 May 2005 16:17:02 +0300 Received: from daebe101.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.241.35.113]) by daebh102.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Tue, 3 May 2005 08:16:55 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate Message-ID: <33B0AB1B4BA65042831AE04C0836E2033BB778@daebe101.NOE.Nokia.com> Thread-Topic: Re: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate Thread-Index: AcVP4mAZ90K8jGepTceo5vh1IpDcpQ== From: To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 May 2005 13:16:55.0467 (UTC) FILETIME=[60C53FB0:01C54FE2] X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 08:16:46 -0500 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 1. draft-singh-capwap-ctp-01.txt yes 2. draft-iino-capwap-wicop-00.txt yes 3. draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-00.txt no 4. draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt yes _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Tue May 3 11:18:09 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA29424 for ; Tue, 3 May 2005 11:18:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EA8220619; Tue, 3 May 2005 11:18:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0A7720613; Tue, 3 May 2005 11:18:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96EED20613 for ; Tue, 3 May 2005 11:17:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mgw-x4.nokia.com (mgw-x4.nokia.com [131.228.20.27]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D7FE2060D for ; Tue, 3 May 2005 11:17:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from esdks001.ntc.nokia.com (esdks001.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.138.120]) by mgw-x4.nokia.com (Switch-2.2.8/Switch-2.2.8) with ESMTP id j43FHll11970 for ; Tue, 3 May 2005 18:17:47 +0300 (EET DST) X-Scanned: Tue, 3 May 2005 18:17:22 +0300 Nokia Message Protector V1.3.34 2004121512 - RELEASE Received: (from root@localhost) by esdks001.ntc.nokia.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id j43FHMIP028390 for ; Tue, 3 May 2005 18:17:22 +0300 Received: from mgw-int2.ntc.nokia.com (172.21.143.97) by esdks001.ntc.nokia.com 006FlydT; Tue, 03 May 2005 18:17:20 EEST Received: from esebh002.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh002.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.138.77]) by mgw-int2.ntc.nokia.com (Switch-2.2.8/Switch-2.2.8) with ESMTP id j43FHBu01869 for ; Tue, 3 May 2005 18:17:11 +0300 (EET DST) Received: from esebh005.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.86]) by esebh002.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6881); Tue, 3 May 2005 18:17:04 +0300 Received: from daebh101.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.241.35.111]) by esebh005.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6881); Tue, 3 May 2005 18:17:03 +0300 Received: from mvebe101.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.19.64.23]) by daebh101.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Tue, 3 May 2005 10:17:02 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate Message-ID: <8A76136424391244A5CF0165337085371D6BCC@mvebe101.NOE.Nokia.com> Thread-Topic: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate Thread-Index: AcVP4mAZ90K8jGepTceo5vh1IpDcpQAELFsQ From: To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 May 2005 15:17:02.0476 (UTC) FILETIME=[287B8CC0:01C54FF3] X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 08:17:00 -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20 1. draft-singh-capwap-ctp-01.txt yes 2. draft-iino-capwap-wicop-00.txt no 3. draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-00.txt no 4. draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt yes _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Tue May 3 11:36:21 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA01127 for ; Tue, 3 May 2005 11:36:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBB0F2061B; Tue, 3 May 2005 11:36:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD16320613; Tue, 3 May 2005 11:36:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DE2020613 for ; Tue, 3 May 2005 11:35:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from psmtp.com (exprod8og6.obsmtp.com [64.18.3.207]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with SMTP id A56482060D for ; Tue, 3 May 2005 11:35:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from source ([66.10.55.3]) by exprod8ob6.obsmtp.com ([64.18.7.12]) with SMTP; Tue, 03 May 2005 08:34:46 PDT Received: from mail1.bluesocket.com ([192.168.168.32]) by mailfe.bluesocket.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 3 May 2005 11:33:31 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7232.53 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C54FF5.75C087F6" Subject: RE: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate Message-ID: <0240FDD68D6C1F4289F73D134A2536A117F505@mail1.bluesocket.com> Thread-Topic: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate Thread-Index: AcVJ7bJV6k9FTsR+TMafVCsl7YcMFgBWtaIw From: "Dick Eckard" To: "Mani, Mahalingam (Mahalingam)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 May 2005 15:33:31.0490 (UTC) FILETIME=[75FB1C20:01C54FF5] X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 11:33:28 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C54FF5.75C087F6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20 1. draft-singh-capwap-ctp-01.txt yes 2. draft-iino-capwap-wicop-00.txt yes 3. draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-00.txt no 4. draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt yes =20 =20 Dick Eckard Bluesocket, Inc =20 ________________________________ From: capwap-admin@frascone.com [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] On Behalf Of Mani, Mahalingam (Mahalingam) Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 7:23 PM To: capwap@frascone.com Subject: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate Importance: High =20 Dear all in WG: =20 We have 4 protocols submitted to the WG for consideration. Evaluating each protocol is quite some effort. So we should be sure we want to undertake that work. The WG chairs would like to hear/gauge WG consensus as to which protocols the WG wants to evaluate against the objectives.=20 =20 We do not ask for extensive or repeated argumentation. We prefer a simple yes/no answer. =20 These are the protocols that have been submitted.=20 =20 1. draft-singh-capwap-ctp-01.txt yes/no 2. draft-iino-capwap-wicop-00.txt yes/no 3. draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-00.txt yes/no 4. draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt yes/no =20 So, do send a simple response to the list with the above 4 lines in the body with your yes/no answer. And we need this no later than by May 5th. =20 It is important that as many WG participants express their opinion so that we can properly gauge consensus as opposed to being forced to decide on a small number of opinions. =20 Thanks, WG chairs & AD =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C54FF5.75C087F6 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

 

  1. draft-singh-capwap-ctp-01.txt       &n= bsp; yes

  2. = draft-iino-capwap-wicop-00.txt        = yes

  3. draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-00.txt    = no

  4. draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt       = yes

 

 

Dick = Eckard

Bluesocket, = Inc

 

From: = capwap-admin@frascone.com [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] On Behalf Of Mani, Mahalingam (Mahalingam)
Sent: Monday, April 25, = 2005 7:23 PM
To: = capwap@frascone.com
Subject: [Capwap] = Selecting Protocols to evaluate
Importance: = High

 

Dear all in WG:

 

We have 4 protocols submitted to the WG for = consideration.

Evaluating each protocol is quite some effort. So we = should

be sure we want to undertake that work. The WG chairs = would

like to hear/gauge WG consensus as to which protocols = the

WG wants to evaluate against the objectives.

 

We do not ask for extensive or repeated = argumentation.

We prefer a simple yes/no answer.

 

These are the protocols that have been submitted. =

 

  1. draft-singh-capwap-ctp-01.txt       &n= bsp; yes/no

  2. = draft-iino-capwap-wicop-00.txt        yes/no

  3. draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-00.txt    = yes/no

  4. draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt       = yes/no

 

So, do send a simple response to the list with the above 4 = lines

in the body with your yes/no answer. And we need this no later = than

by May 5th.

 

It is important that as many WG participants express their = opinion

so that we can properly gauge consensus as opposed to being = forced

to decide on a small number of opinions.

 

Thanks,

WG chairs & AD

 

------_=_NextPart_001_01C54FF5.75C087F6-- _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Tue May 3 11:41:07 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA01662 for ; Tue, 3 May 2005 11:41:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B62DF20615; Tue, 3 May 2005 11:41:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06F2420435; Tue, 3 May 2005 11:41:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E896204A9 for ; Tue, 3 May 2005 11:40:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from tierw.net.avaya.com (tierw.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BAB720435 for ; Tue, 3 May 2005 11:40:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from tierw.net.avaya.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tierw.net.avaya.com (Switch-3.1.2/Switch-3.1.0) with ESMTP id j43FTQVl003511 for ; Tue, 3 May 2005 11:29:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cof110avexu1.global.avaya.com (h135-9-6-16.avaya.com [135.9.6.16]) by tierw.net.avaya.com (Switch-3.1.2/Switch-3.1.0) with ESMTP id j43FSKVl001871 for ; Tue, 3 May 2005 11:28:42 -0400 (EDT) x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6603.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate Thread-Index: AcVPd9Y9F5jOsjuQTXiH9iUy72yDbAAfSDbg From: "Mani, Mahalingam (Mahalingam)" To: "subrata goswami" , X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 09:39:28 -0600 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The motivation for the polling has been to gauge the rough WG consensus for the evaluation stage accurately. Since we are on mailing list until July - we have taken this approach. Thanks to all who have opined on the poll; we once again urge all else to poll-in soon. -mani =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D -----Original Message----- From: capwap-admin@frascone.com [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] On Behalf Of subrata goswami Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 5:34 PM To: capwap@frascone.com Subject: Re: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate i do not remember seeing how the result of the votes will be evaluated.=20 can anyone throw some light on this please ? dr. subrata goswami Dorothy.Gellert@nokia.com wrote: > Hi Paul- > =20 > The result of this poll gives us the individual protocols that we will > evaluate as a *baseline* protocol for CAPWAP WG item. From there we=20 > can update and change mechanisms as with any WG item. =20 > =20 > This poll is meant to determine that all protocols selected for=20 > evaluation meet the scope and charter of the WG. > =20 > If one protocol is not accepted for evaluation as a baseline=20 > protocol, certainly portions of that protocol can be submitted to the=20 > WG to better address the objectives. Once we have a baseline CAPWAP=20 > protocol as a WG item, we can update or add sections as needed. > =20 > Regards, > Dorothy > =20 > =20 > -----Original Message----- > *From:* capwap-admin@frascone.com=20 > [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com]*On Behalf Of *ext Paul Lambert > *Sent:* Monday, April 25, 2005 6:55 PM > *To:* Yang, Lily L; capwap@frascone.com > *Subject:* RE: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate > > What if we don't like any of them? Can we mix and match sections from > each? > =20 > Paul > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* capwap-admin@frascone.com > [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] *On Behalf Of *Yang, Lily L > *Sent:* Monday, April 25, 2005 6:36 PM > *To:* capwap@frascone.com > *Subject:* RE: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate > > 1. draft-singh-capwap-ctp-01.txt yes > > 2. draft-iino-capwap-wicop-00.txt yes > > 3. draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-00.txt yes > > 4. draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt yes > > =20 > > Lily > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* capwap-admin@frascone.com > [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] *On Behalf Of *Mani, Mahalingam > (Mahalingam) > *Sent:* Monday, April 25, 2005 4:23 PM > *To:* capwap@frascone.com > *Subject:* [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate > *Importance:* High > > =20 > > Dear all in WG: > > =20 > > We have 4 protocols submitted to the WG for consideration. > > Evaluating each protocol is quite some effort. So we should > > be sure we want to undertake that work. The WG chairs would > > like to hear/gauge WG consensus as to which protocols the > > WG wants to evaluate against the objectives. > > =20 > > We do not ask for extensive or repeated argumentation. > > We prefer a simple yes/no answer. > > =20 > > These are the protocols that have been submitted. > > =20 > > 1. draft-singh-capwap-ctp-01.txt yes/no > > 2. draft-iino-capwap-wicop-00.txt yes/no > > 3. draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-00.txt yes/no > > 4. draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt yes/no > > =20 > > So, do send a simple response to the list with the above 4 lines > > in the body with your yes/no answer. And we need this no later than > > by May 5th. > > =20 > > It is important that as many WG participants express their opinion > > so that we can properly gauge consensus as opposed to being forced > > to decide on a small number of opinions. > > =20 > > Thanks, > > WG chairs & AD > > =20 > _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Tue May 3 11:41:24 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA01710 for ; Tue, 3 May 2005 11:41:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 594C82062D; Tue, 3 May 2005 11:41:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 301DE20618; Tue, 3 May 2005 11:41:11 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3262320435 for ; Tue, 3 May 2005 11:40:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from tiere.net.avaya.com (tiere.net.avaya.com [198.152.12.100]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B53A205C6 for ; Tue, 3 May 2005 11:40:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from tiere.net.avaya.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tiere.net.avaya.com (Switch-3.1.2/Switch-3.1.0) with ESMTP id j43FcGU0001071 for ; Tue, 3 May 2005 11:38:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from IS0004AVEXU1.global.avaya.com (h135-64-105-51.avaya.com [135.64.105.51]) by tiere.net.avaya.com (Switch-3.1.2/Switch-3.1.0) with ESMTP id j43Fb1U0028726 for ; Tue, 3 May 2005 11:37:23 -0400 (EDT) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6603.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C54FF6.164099F4" Subject: RE: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate Message-ID: Thread-Topic: RE: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate Thread-Index: AcVP9hYuDtEu1D7SQ7i2KclFCm3UCA== From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 18:38:00 +0300 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C54FF6.164099F4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1255" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 1. draft-singh-capwap-ctp-01.txt yes 2. draft-iino-capwap-wicop-00.txt yes 3. draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-00.txt yes 4. draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt yes Regards, Dan ------_=_NextPart_001_01C54FF6.164099F4 Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1255" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate

1. = draft-singh-capwap-ctp-01.txt yes

2. = draft-iino-capwap-wicop-00.txt yes

3. = draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-00.txt yes

4. = draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt yes


Regards,

Dan

------_=_NextPart_001_01C54FF6.164099F4-- _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Tue May 3 11:45:08 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA02170 for ; Tue, 3 May 2005 11:45:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32BD920625; Tue, 3 May 2005 11:45:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8751C2060D; Tue, 3 May 2005 11:45:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47199204A9 for ; Tue, 3 May 2005 11:44:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from palrel13.hp.com (palrel13.hp.com [156.153.255.238]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4202820435 for ; Tue, 3 May 2005 11:44:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cacexg11.americas.cpqcorp.net (cacexg11.americas.cpqcorp.net [16.92.1.67]) by palrel13.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 644FD1C0358F for ; Tue, 3 May 2005 08:44:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cacexc09.americas.cpqcorp.net ([16.92.1.34]) by cacexg11.americas.cpqcorp.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Tue, 3 May 2005 08:44:26 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C54FF6.FC286862" Subject: RE: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate Message-ID: <70A767D8CD2AFF49985FF7150B09A5020234DA90@cacexc09.americas.cpqcorp.net> Thread-Topic: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate Thread-Index: AcVP9hYuDtEu1D7SQ7i2KclFCm3UCAAANOtQ From: "Wendt, Jim" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 May 2005 15:44:26.0179 (UTC) FILETIME=[FC34B930:01C54FF6] X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 08:44:25 -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C54FF6.FC286862 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20 1. draft-singh-capwap-ctp-01.txt yes 2. draft-iino-capwap-wicop-00.txt yes 3. draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-00.txt yes 4. draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt yes Regards, Jim=20 =09 =09 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C54FF6.FC286862 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate
 

1. = draft-singh-capwap-ctp-01.txt yes

2. = draft-iino-capwap-wicop-00.txt yes

3. = draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-00.txt yes

4. = draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt yes


Regards,

 Jim 

------_=_NextPart_001_01C54FF6.FC286862-- _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Tue May 3 12:49:06 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA09035 for ; Tue, 3 May 2005 12:49:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 791092061B; Tue, 3 May 2005 12:49:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A265F20615; Tue, 3 May 2005 12:49:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CF7620615 for ; Tue, 3 May 2005 12:48:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail4.infinology.net (mail4.infinology.net [38.118.142.231]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with SMTP id DFACC20435 for ; Tue, 3 May 2005 12:48:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 56276 invoked by uid 399); 3 May 2005 16:42:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO Gem2) (62.253.141.105) by mail4.infinology.net with SMTP; 3 May 2005 16:42:09 -0000 From: "Jon Edney" To: Subject: Re: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0056_01C55008.62857100" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Thread-Index: AcVQAAAAWo4MticNQeqmreHOySwcBw== Message-Id: <20050503164843.DFACC20435@mail.frascone.com> X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 17:48:58 +0100 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0056_01C55008.62857100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 1. draft-singh-capwap-ctp-01.txt yes 2. draft-iino-capwap-wicop-00.txt yes 3. draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-00.txt no 4. draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt yes ------=_NextPart_000_0056_01C55008.62857100 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

1. draft-singh-capwap-ctp-01.txt       &n= bsp; yes

2. draft-iino-capwap-wicop-00.txt        = yes

3. draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-00.txt    = no

4. draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt   =     yes

 

------=_NextPart_000_0056_01C55008.62857100-- _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Tue May 3 16:19:12 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA07087 for ; Tue, 3 May 2005 16:19:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 180F820625; Tue, 3 May 2005 16:19:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BEF320619; Tue, 3 May 2005 16:19:02 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3455920619 for ; Tue, 3 May 2005 16:18:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from gtfw2.enterasys.com (gtfw2.enterasys.com [12.25.1.128]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18CBE20547 for ; Tue, 3 May 2005 16:18:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from NHROCAVG2.ets.enterasys.com ([134.141.79.124]) by gtfw2.enterasys.com (0.25.1/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j43KIMZC023336 for ; Tue, 3 May 2005 16:18:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from NHROCCNC2.ets.enterasys.com ([134.141.79.124]) by 134.141.79.124 with InterScan Messaging Security Suite; Tue, 03 May 2005 16:18:22 -0400 Received: from source ([134.141.79.122]) by host ([134.141.79.124]) with SMTP; Tue, 03 May 2005 16:18:22 -0400 Received: from maandmbx2 ([134.141.93.31]) by NHROCCNC2.ets.enterasys.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Tue, 3 May 2005 16:18:22 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.6944.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate Message-ID: <2A5E4540D4D5934D9A1E7E0B0FDB2D6901032310@MAANDMBX2.ets.enterasys.com> Thread-Topic: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate Thread-Index: AcVJ7bJV6k9FTsR+TMafVCsl7YcMFgBWtaIwATT4kqA= From: "Nelson, David" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 May 2005 20:18:22.0764 (UTC) FILETIME=[412C8EC0:01C5501D] X-pstn-version: pmps:sps_win32_1_1_0c1 pase:2.8 X-pstn-levels: (C:78.1961 M:98.9607 P:95.9108 R:95.9108 S:50.5310 ) X-pstn-settings: 4 (0.2500:0.7500) p:13 m:13 C:14 r:13 X-pstn-addresses: from forward (org good) X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 16:18:21 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =A0 1. draft-singh-capwap-ctp-01.txt=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 yes =A0 2. draft-iino-capwap-wicop-00.txt=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 yes =A0 3. draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-00.txt=A0=A0=A0 yes (See Note) =A0 4. draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 yes Note: IMHO, this submission does not meet the base requirements for = CAPWAP, but all submissions should have a formal evaluation report, for = the record. Some evaluation reports might be shorter than others. :-) _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From lebahn@doneasy.com Tue May 3 22:13:55 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA03533; Tue, 3 May 2005 22:13:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pc-63-176-83-200.cm.vtr.net ([200.83.176.63]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DT9cd-0006S4-9G; Tue, 03 May 2005 22:28:25 -0400 Delivered-To: crisis@analogous.dreamhost.com Received: from bookie.dreamhost.com by coppery.dreamhost.com (Pingofix) with ESMTP id 4CC5A28D3B for ; Wed, 04 May 2005 05:14:01 +0200 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 06:16:01 +0300 From: "Sheree Edwards" To: Subject: Lowest rate approval X-Mailer: Mailman v2.0.5 X-SpamTest-Info: Profile: Formal (167/041109) X-SpamTest-Info: Profile: Detect Hard No RBL (4/030597) X-Spam-Score: 6.0 (++++++) X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Scan-Signature: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3 Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.h0us1ng.net/sign.asp Best Regards, Aurelio Rivers to be remov(ed: http://www.h0us1ng.net/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From capwap-admin@frascone.com Wed May 4 12:34:06 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA27119 for ; Wed, 4 May 2005 12:34:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B32B20665; Wed, 4 May 2005 12:34:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E44E62065C; Wed, 4 May 2005 12:34:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD4142065C for ; Wed, 4 May 2005 12:33:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from orsfmr004.jf.intel.com (fmr19.intel.com [134.134.136.18]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C611F20489 for ; Wed, 4 May 2005 12:33:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from orsfmr101.jf.intel.com (orsfmr101.jf.intel.com [10.7.209.17]) by orsfmr004.jf.intel.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/d: major-outer.mc,v 1.1 2004/09/17 17:50:56 root Exp $) with ESMTP id j44GXEhd014157 for ; Wed, 4 May 2005 16:33:14 GMT Received: from orsmsxvs040.jf.intel.com (orsmsxvs040.jf.intel.com [192.168.65.206]) by orsfmr101.jf.intel.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/d: major-inner.mc,v 1.2 2004/09/17 18:05:01 root Exp $) with SMTP id j44GXE9G008561 for ; Wed, 4 May 2005 16:33:14 GMT Received: from orsmsx331.amr.corp.intel.com ([192.168.65.56]) by orsmsxvs040.jf.intel.com (SAVSMTP 3.1.7.47) with SMTP id M2005050409331417594 for ; Wed, 04 May 2005 09:33:14 -0700 Received: from orsmsx404.amr.corp.intel.com ([192.168.65.44]) by orsmsx331.amr.corp.intel.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Wed, 4 May 2005 09:33:14 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate Message-ID: <0604335B7764D141945E20215310596004DFA882@orsmsx404.amr.corp.intel.com> Thread-Topic: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate thread-index: AcVPLgDZOzGXAtaUTSqDee76s8jQ2ABmN7Qw From: "Sood, Kapil" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 May 2005 16:33:14.0201 (UTC) FILETIME=[F7DB2C90:01C550C6] X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.44 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 09:33:12 -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 1. draft-singh-capwap-ctp-01.txt yes 2. draft-iino-capwap-wicop-00.txt yes 3. draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-00.txt no 4. draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt yes Kapil. _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Wed May 4 13:31:07 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA03742 for ; Wed, 4 May 2005 13:31:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35B9B20668; Wed, 4 May 2005 13:31:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EEA120663; Wed, 4 May 2005 13:31:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9A6D20663 for ; Wed, 4 May 2005 13:30:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from tierw.net.avaya.com (tierw.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B1402065C for ; Wed, 4 May 2005 13:30:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from tierw.net.avaya.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tierw.net.avaya.com (Switch-3.1.2/Switch-3.1.0) with ESMTP id j44HJeVl006802 for ; Wed, 4 May 2005 13:19:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cof110avexu1.global.avaya.com (h135-9-6-16.avaya.com [135.9.6.16]) by tierw.net.avaya.com (Switch-3.1.2/Switch-3.1.0) with ESMTP id j44HIbVl005099 for ; Wed, 4 May 2005 13:18:57 -0400 (EDT) x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6603.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: FW: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate Thread-Index: AcVPd9Y9F5jOsjuQTXiH9iUy72yDbAAfSDbgABC0cLAAJbLwUA== From: "Mani, Mahalingam (Mahalingam)" To: X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 11:29:46 -0600 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Forwarded... -mani =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D -----Original Message----- From: t.sridhar [mailto:sridhar@futsoft.com]=20 Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 4:29 PM To: Mani, Mahalingam (Mahalingam) Subject: RE: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate Mani, For some reason, my email to the list seems to be bouncing. Here's my input to the poll: 1. draft-singh-capwap-ctp-01.txt yes 2. draft-iino-capwap-wicop-00.txt yes 3. draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-00.txt yes 4. draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt yes Thanks, Sridhar > -----Original Message----- From: capwap-admin@frascone.com [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] On Behalf Of Mani, Mahalingam (Mahalingam) Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 8:39 AM To: subrata goswami; capwap@frascone.com Subject: RE: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate The motivation for the polling has been to gauge the rough WG consensus for the evaluation stage accurately. Since we are on mailing list until July - we have taken this approach. Thanks to all who have opined on the poll; we once again urge all else to poll-in soon. -mani =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D -----Original Message----- From: capwap-admin@frascone.com [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] On Behalf Of subrata goswami Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 5:34 PM To: capwap@frascone.com Subject: Re: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate i do not remember seeing how the result of the votes will be evaluated.=20 can anyone throw some light on this please ? dr. subrata goswami Dorothy.Gellert@nokia.com wrote: > Hi Paul- > =20 > The result of this poll gives us the individual protocols that we will > evaluate as a *baseline* protocol for CAPWAP WG item. From there we=20 > can update and change mechanisms as with any WG item. =20 > =20 > This poll is meant to determine that all protocols selected for=20 > evaluation meet the scope and charter of the WG. > =20 > If one protocol is not accepted for evaluation as a baseline=20 > protocol, certainly portions of that protocol can be submitted to the=20 > WG to better address the objectives. Once we have a baseline CAPWAP=20 > protocol as a WG item, we can update or add sections as needed. > =20 > Regards, > Dorothy > =20 > =20 > -----Original Message----- > *From:* capwap-admin@frascone.com=20 > [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com]*On Behalf Of *ext Paul Lambert > *Sent:* Monday, April 25, 2005 6:55 PM > *To:* Yang, Lily L; capwap@frascone.com > *Subject:* RE: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate > > What if we don't like any of them? Can we mix and match sections from > each? > =20 > Paul > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* capwap-admin@frascone.com > [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] *On Behalf Of *Yang, Lily L > *Sent:* Monday, April 25, 2005 6:36 PM > *To:* capwap@frascone.com > *Subject:* RE: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate > > 1. draft-singh-capwap-ctp-01.txt yes > > 2. draft-iino-capwap-wicop-00.txt yes > > 3. draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-00.txt yes > > 4. draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt yes > > =20 > > Lily > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* capwap-admin@frascone.com > [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] *On Behalf Of *Mani, Mahalingam > (Mahalingam) > *Sent:* Monday, April 25, 2005 4:23 PM > *To:* capwap@frascone.com > *Subject:* [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate > *Importance:* High > > =20 > > Dear all in WG: > > =20 > > We have 4 protocols submitted to the WG for consideration. > > Evaluating each protocol is quite some effort. So we should > > be sure we want to undertake that work. The WG chairs would > > like to hear/gauge WG consensus as to which protocols the > > WG wants to evaluate against the objectives. > > =20 > > We do not ask for extensive or repeated argumentation. > > We prefer a simple yes/no answer. > > =20 > > These are the protocols that have been submitted. > > =20 > > 1. draft-singh-capwap-ctp-01.txt yes/no > > 2. draft-iino-capwap-wicop-00.txt yes/no > > 3. draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-00.txt yes/no > > 4. draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt yes/no > > =20 > > So, do send a simple response to the list with the above 4 lines > > in the body with your yes/no answer. And we need this no later than > > by May 5th. > > =20 > > It is important that as many WG participants express their opinion > > so that we can properly gauge consensus as opposed to being forced > > to decide on a small number of opinions. > > =20 > > Thanks, > > WG chairs & AD > > =20 > _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap ************************************************************************ *** This message is proprietary to FutureSoft and is intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged or confidential information and should not be circulated or used for any purpose other than for what it is intended. If you have received this message in error, please notify the originator immediately. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that you are strictly prohibited from using, copying, altering, or disclosing the contents of this message. FutureSoft accepts no responsibility for loss or damage arising from the use of the information transmitted by this email including damage from virus. ************************************************************************ *** _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Wed May 4 15:19:07 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA17865 for ; Wed, 4 May 2005 15:19:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D691620668; Wed, 4 May 2005 15:19:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BE5A2065C; Wed, 4 May 2005 15:19:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C55D72065C for ; Wed, 4 May 2005 15:18:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from aruba-server.arubanetworks.com (smtp.arubanetworks.com [216.31.249.252]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with SMTP id AFF462041C for ; Wed, 4 May 2005 15:18:55 -0400 (EDT) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6603.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate Message-ID: Thread-Topic: RE: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate Thread-Index: AcVQ3hyZHGqVNJNcS2aD5MmtGfuj4w== From: "Randy Chou" To: X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 12:18:54 -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 1. draft-singh-capwap-ctp-01.txt yes 2. draft-iino-capwap-wicop-00.txt yes 3. draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-00.txt yes 4. draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt yes Regards, -- Randy _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Wed May 4 15:24:07 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA18677 for ; Wed, 4 May 2005 15:24:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7553A20669; Wed, 4 May 2005 15:24:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E64820663; Wed, 4 May 2005 15:24:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A199B20663 for ; Wed, 4 May 2005 15:23:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from aruba-server.arubanetworks.com (mail.arubanetworks.com [216.31.249.253]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 8CCCC2065C for ; Wed, 4 May 2005 15:23:04 -0400 (EDT) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6603.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C550DE.B16357AC" Subject: RE: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate Message-ID: Thread-Topic: RE: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate Thread-Index: AcVQ3nziKIDctUwiTaiaGGHkIiSt6g== From: "Brijesh Nambiar" To: X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 12:23:03 -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C550DE.B16357AC Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 1. draft-singh-capwap-ctp-01.txt yes 2. draft-iino-capwap-wicop-00.txt yes 3. draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-00.txt yes 4. draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt yes =20 Regards, Brijesh ------_=_NextPart_001_01C550DE.B16357AC Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

1. draft-singh-capwap-ctp-01.txt       &n= bsp; yes

2. draft-iino-capwap-wicop-00.txt        = yes

3. draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-00.txt    = yes

4. = draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt       = yes

 

Regards,

Brijesh

------_=_NextPart_001_01C550DE.B16357AC-- _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Wed May 4 15:26:20 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA18967 for ; Wed, 4 May 2005 15:26:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07D412066A; Wed, 4 May 2005 15:26:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 136FA20665; Wed, 4 May 2005 15:26:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B50120665 for ; Wed, 4 May 2005 15:25:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d131-fmt-d01.ethr.net (d131-fmt-d01.ethr.net [208.37.28.131]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A136E20663 for ; Wed, 4 May 2005 15:25:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [208.37.28.131] (helo=Luiz) by d131-fmt-d01.ethr.net with smtp (Exim 4.24) id 1DTPnB-0002VE-17 for capwap@frascone.com; Wed, 04 May 2005 12:44:21 -0700 Message-ID: <05a901c550df$01faa620$0170640a@arubanetworks.com> From: "Luiz Eduardo" To: Subject: Re: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_05A6_01C550A4.5575A880" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 12:25:18 -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_05A6_01C550A4.5575A880 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 1. draft-singh-capwap-ctp-01.txt yes 2. draft-iino-capwap-wicop-00.txt yes 3. draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-00.txt yes 4. draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt yes =20 ------=_NextPart_000_05A6_01C550A4.5575A880 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

1. draft-singh-capwap-ctp-01.txt yes

2. draft-iino-capwap-wicop-00.txt yes

3. draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-00.txt yes

4. draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt yes

   =20
 
------=_NextPart_000_05A6_01C550A4.5575A880-- _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Wed May 4 16:20:07 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA01002 for ; Wed, 4 May 2005 16:20:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D61A20669; Wed, 4 May 2005 16:20:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9B7320663; Wed, 4 May 2005 16:20:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36D0F20621 for ; Wed, 4 May 2005 16:19:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from web41123.mail.yahoo.com (web41123.mail.yahoo.com [66.218.94.166]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 470F32026B for ; Wed, 4 May 2005 16:19:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 82808 invoked by uid 60001); 4 May 2005 20:19:16 -0000 Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; b=GbCp9ugUMyuIUVleF39FcdVAKhPeBkSLyroEjsAcYpZJ05DIitRlgezt2Zlvz4ROT8tiDrDYJ64/8ATYC7WbuOGusDhBBXBXnj+B8PbaKkewkBgXoPJ5p8jkKpTuuQpcyFODXYJTobeE36L4AD6+antU3JCafleiR0FvyRXf9uk= ; Message-ID: <20050504201916.82806.qmail@web41123.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [66.206.164.206] by web41123.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 04 May 2005 13:19:16 PDT From: Fatima Peter Subject: Re: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate To: capwap@frascone.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1765229452-1115237956=:82345" X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 13:19:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) --0-1765229452-1115237956=:82345 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 1. draft-singh-capwap-ctp-01.txt no 2. draft-iino-capwap-wicop-00.txt no 3. draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-00.txt no 4. draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt yes Regards. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. --0-1765229452-1115237956=:82345 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

1. draft-singh-capwap-ctp-01.txt         no
2. draft-iino-capwap-wicop-00.txt        no
3. draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-00.txt    no
4. draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt     yes
 
Regards.
 

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. --0-1765229452-1115237956=:82345-- _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From dubba@didamail.com Wed May 4 19:02:50 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA22977; Wed, 4 May 2005 19:02:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from host50.foretec.com ([65.246.255.50] helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DTT7S-0003xN-Jx; Wed, 04 May 2005 19:17:31 -0400 Received: from pcp0010631835pcs.lehgha01.fl.comcast.net ([69.241.184.231]) by mx2.foretec.com with smtp (Exim 4.24) id 1DTSsy-00056C-4F; Wed, 04 May 2005 19:02:32 -0400 Authentication-Results: crud.es from=premium.aliquot.es; domainkeys=neutral (no sig) X-Originating-IP: [100.29.116.36] Received: from premium.person.es (EHLO premium.broach.es) by premium.clog.es with SMTP; Wed, 04 May 2005 20:54:19 -0300 Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 16:50:19 -0700 From: "Arturo Eastman" To: brenton.daniels@ietf.org Cc: bridge-mib@ietf.org, bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org, business@ietf.org, calsch@ietf.org, cancer@ietf.org, capwap-archive@ietf.org, ccips@ietf.org, cclark@ietf.org, cdi-archive@ietf.org, cdir-admin@ietf.org, cfrg@ietf.org, cfrg-admin@ietf.org, cfrg-archive@ietf.org, cfrg-bounces@ietf.org Subject: Rates fixed wont last long Message-ID: <110341.4058.dubba@didamail.com> X-Mailer: Kana Connect 6 X-Spam-Score: 12.1 (++++++++++++) X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Scan-Signature: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3 Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.h0us1ng.net/sign.asp Best Regards, Patrica Steward to be remov(ed: http://www.h0us1ng.net/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From capwap-admin@frascone.com Wed May 4 19:46:06 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA27379 for ; Wed, 4 May 2005 19:46:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB8C320615; Wed, 4 May 2005 19:46:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4044520585; Wed, 4 May 2005 19:46:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A548820585 for ; Wed, 4 May 2005 19:46:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from tiere.net.avaya.com (tiere.net.avaya.com [198.152.12.100]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D24572026F for ; Wed, 4 May 2005 19:45:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from tiere.net.avaya.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tiere.net.avaya.com (Switch-3.1.2/Switch-3.1.0) with ESMTP id j44NhbU0017856 for ; Wed, 4 May 2005 19:43:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cof110avexu1.global.avaya.com (h135-9-6-16.avaya.com [135.9.6.16]) by tiere.net.avaya.com (Switch-3.1.2/Switch-3.1.0) with ESMTP id j44NhaU0017826 for ; Wed, 4 May 2005 19:43:36 -0400 (EDT) x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6603.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: FW: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate Thread-Index: AcVQz/8Vdoev1ZV5QsSf1RLly80N7QAM1tAg From: "Mani, Mahalingam (Mahalingam)" To: X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 17:45:56 -0600 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Another forwarded... -mani =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D -----Original Message----- From: Michael Montemurro [mailto:michael.montemurro@siemens.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 10:36 AM To: Mani, Mahalingam (Mahalingam) Subject: RE: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate Mani, I'm having problems posting to the reflector as well. Could you please forward my vote to the reflector as well? Here's my vote: 1. draft-singh-capwap-ctp-01.txt yes 2. draft-iino-capwap-wicop-00.txt yes 3. draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-00.txt yes 4. draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt yes Thanks, Mike _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Wed May 4 23:17:07 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA16342 for ; Wed, 4 May 2005 23:17:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF94A2060E; Wed, 4 May 2005 23:17:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A511320510; Wed, 4 May 2005 23:17:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EE5220510 for ; Wed, 4 May 2005 23:16:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp2.mei.co.jp (smtp2.mei.co.jp [133.183.129.27]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D78F01FE0C for ; Wed, 4 May 2005 23:16:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail-gw.jp.panasonic.com (dodgers.mei.co.jp [157.8.1.150]) by smtp2.mei.co.jp (8.12.10/3.7W/bulls) with ESMTP id j453G8SU003599; Thu, 5 May 2005 12:16:08 +0900 (JST) Received: by mail-gw.jp.panasonic.com (8.11.6p2/3.7W/somlx3) with ESMTP id j453GAW22321; Thu, 5 May 2005 12:16:10 +0900 (JST) Received: from pslexc01.psl.local (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.jp.panasonic.com (8.11.6p2/3.7W/dodgers) with ESMTP id j453G7n04883; Thu, 5 May 2005 12:16:07 +0900 (JST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate Message-ID: <5F09D220B62F79418461A978CA0921BD1EFAB7@pslexc01.psl.local> Thread-Topic: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate thread-index: AcVPd9Y9F5jOsjuQTXiH9iUy72yDbAAfSDbgAEmQlZA= From: "Cheng Hong" To: "Mani, Mahalingam (Mahalingam)" , "subrata goswami" , X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 11:13:42 +0800 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Mani, Just a bit curious about the polling here. How should we gauge if there is a consensus? Do we have a number threshold set somewhere (e.g. how big is the voting pool, how many percent constitutes a consensus)?=20 Usually, in other organizations, the no vote should have a technical reason attached. Should we also enforce it here? At least, we will know if votes from some temporary account are valid. cheers Cheng =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: capwap-admin@frascone.com=20 > [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] On Behalf Of Mani,=20 > Mahalingam (Mahalingam) > Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 11:39 PM > To: subrata goswami; capwap@frascone.com > Subject: RE: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate >=20 > The motivation for the polling has been to gauge the rough WG=20 > consensus for the evaluation stage accurately. Since we are=20 > on mailing list until July - we have taken this approach. >=20 > Thanks to all who have opined on the poll; we once again urge=20 > all else to poll-in soon. >=20 > -mani > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > -----Original Message----- > From: capwap-admin@frascone.com=20 > [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] On Behalf Of subrata goswami > Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 5:34 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: Re: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate >=20 > i do not remember seeing how the result of the votes will be=20 > evaluated.=20 > can anyone throw some > light on this please ? >=20 > dr. subrata goswami >=20 > Dorothy.Gellert@nokia.com wrote: >=20 > > Hi Paul- > > =20 > > The result of this poll gives us the individual protocols=20 > that we will >=20 > > evaluate as a *baseline* protocol for CAPWAP WG item. From=20 > there we=20 > > can update and change mechanisms as with any WG item. > > =20 > > This poll is meant to determine that all protocols selected for=20 > > evaluation meet the scope and charter of the WG. > > =20 > > If one protocol is not accepted for evaluation as a=20 > baseline protocol,=20 > > certainly portions of that protocol can be submitted to the WG to=20 > > better address the objectives. Once we have a baseline CAPWAP=20 > > protocol as a WG item, we can update or add sections as needed. > > =20 > > Regards, > > Dorothy > > =20 > > =20 > > -----Original Message----- > > *From:* capwap-admin@frascone.com > > [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com]*On Behalf Of *ext Paul Lambert > > *Sent:* Monday, April 25, 2005 6:55 PM > > *To:* Yang, Lily L; capwap@frascone.com > > *Subject:* RE: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate > > > > What if we don't like any of them? Can we mix and match=20 > sections from >=20 > > each? > > =20 > > Paul > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- > > *From:* capwap-admin@frascone.com > > [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] *On Behalf Of *Yang, Lily L > > *Sent:* Monday, April 25, 2005 6:36 PM > > *To:* capwap@frascone.com > > *Subject:* RE: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate > > > > 1. draft-singh-capwap-ctp-01.txt yes > > > > 2. draft-iino-capwap-wicop-00.txt yes > > > > 3. draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-00.txt yes > > > > 4. draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt yes > > > > =20 > > > > Lily > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- > > > > *From:* capwap-admin@frascone.com > > [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] *On Behalf Of *Mani,=20 > Mahalingam > > (Mahalingam) > > *Sent:* Monday, April 25, 2005 4:23 PM > > *To:* capwap@frascone.com > > *Subject:* [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate > > *Importance:* High > > > > =20 > > > > Dear all in WG: > > > > =20 > > > > We have 4 protocols submitted to the WG for consideration. > > > > Evaluating each protocol is quite some effort. So we should > > > > be sure we want to undertake that work. The WG chairs would > > > > like to hear/gauge WG consensus as to which protocols the > > > > WG wants to evaluate against the objectives. > > > > =20 > > > > We do not ask for extensive or repeated argumentation. > > > > We prefer a simple yes/no answer. > > > > =20 > > > > These are the protocols that have been submitted. > > > > =20 > > > > 1. draft-singh-capwap-ctp-01.txt yes/no > > > > 2. draft-iino-capwap-wicop-00.txt yes/no > > > > 3. draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-00.txt yes/no > > > > 4. draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt yes/no > > > > =20 > > > > So, do send a simple response to the list with the above 4 lines > > > > in the body with your yes/no answer. And we need this no later > than > > > > by May 5th. > > > > =20 > > > > It is important that as many WG participants express=20 > their opinion > > > > so that we can properly gauge consensus as opposed to=20 > being forced > > > > to decide on a small number of opinions. > > > > =20 > > > > Thanks, > > > > WG chairs & AD > > > > =20 > > >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Capwap mailing list > Capwap@frascone.com > http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Capwap mailing list > Capwap@frascone.com > http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap >=20 _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Wed May 4 23:23:05 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA16789 for ; Wed, 4 May 2005 23:23:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7EA02060E; Wed, 4 May 2005 23:23:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2E3C20510; Wed, 4 May 2005 23:23:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C80D220510 for ; Wed, 4 May 2005 23:22:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp2.mei.co.jp (smtp2.mei.co.jp [133.183.129.27]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 941CE1FE0C for ; Wed, 4 May 2005 23:22:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail-gw.jp.panasonic.com (dodgers.mei.co.jp [157.8.1.150]) by smtp2.mei.co.jp (8.12.10/3.7W/jazz) with ESMTP id j453MhUP009200 for ; Thu, 5 May 2005 12:22:43 +0900 (JST) Received: by mail-gw.jp.panasonic.com (8.11.6p2/3.7W/somlx3) with ESMTP id j453MjW23669 for ; Thu, 5 May 2005 12:22:45 +0900 (JST) Received: from pslexc01.psl.local (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.jp.panasonic.com (8.11.6p2/3.7W/mariners) with ESMTP id j453MhL26269 for ; Thu, 5 May 2005 12:22:43 +0900 (JST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate Message-ID: <5F09D220B62F79418461A978CA0921BD1EFAB9@pslexc01.psl.local> Thread-Topic: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate thread-index: AcVQ5lu9Mca/Uq+cQ028hvcpiWi9tAAOuEnA From: "Cheng Hong" To: X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 11:20:17 +0800 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 1. draft-singh-capwap-ctp-01.txt yes 2. draft-iino-capwap-wicop-00.txt yes 3. draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-00.txt yes 4. draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt yes. _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Thu May 5 01:00:12 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA25082 for ; Thu, 5 May 2005 01:00:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B6122060E; Thu, 5 May 2005 01:00:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3463205B4; Thu, 5 May 2005 01:00:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C48AC1FD63 for ; Thu, 5 May 2005 01:00:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp2.mei.co.jp (smtp2.mei.co.jp [133.183.129.27]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E21F1FC62 for ; Thu, 5 May 2005 00:59:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail-gw.jp.panasonic.com (dodgers.mei.co.jp [157.8.1.150]) by smtp2.mei.co.jp (8.12.10/3.7W/bulls) with ESMTP id j454xtSU017234 for ; Thu, 5 May 2005 13:59:55 +0900 (JST) Received: by mail-gw.jp.panasonic.com (8.11.6p2/3.7W/somlx3) with ESMTP id j454xuW13873 for ; Thu, 5 May 2005 13:59:56 +0900 (JST) Received: from pslexc01.psl.local (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.jp.panasonic.com (8.11.6p2/3.7W/bluejays) with ESMTP id j454xtK25228 for ; Thu, 5 May 2005 13:59:55 +0900 (JST) Received: from CalmPalm ([10.81.114.228]) by pslexc01.psl.local with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Thu, 5 May 2005 12:57:30 +0800 Reply-To: From: "Tan Pek Yew" To: Subject: Re: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate Organization: Panasonic Singapore Laboratories MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 thread-index: AcVRIvZu4hrt4w0yTw+REiEXuB50uw== Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 May 2005 04:57:30.0596 (UTC) FILETIME=[F1244A40:01C5512E] X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 12:57:04 +0800 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 1. draft-singh-capwap-ctp-01.txt yes 2. draft-iino-capwap-wicop-00.txt yes 3. draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-00.txt no 4. draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt yes *********************************************************************** TAN, Pek-Yew email : pytan@psl.com.sg *********************************************************************** _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Thu May 5 01:04:09 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA25385 for ; Thu, 5 May 2005 01:04:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C064F2060E; Thu, 5 May 2005 01:04:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 406321FD63; Thu, 5 May 2005 01:04:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B9081FD63 for ; Thu, 5 May 2005 01:03:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from aruba-server.arubanetworks.com (mail.arubanetworks.com [216.31.249.253]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 187C01FC62 for ; Thu, 5 May 2005 01:02:59 -0400 (EDT) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6603.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; type="multipart/alternative"; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C5512F.B4B6BC82" Subject: RE: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: yes Thread-Topic: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate Thread-Index: AcVRKjJoZcEn4W1oTRuYSwFIG7TYawABV4Eg From: "Merwyn Andrade" To: X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 22:02:58 -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C5512F.B4B6BC82 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_002_01C5512F.B4B6BC82" ------_=_NextPart_002_01C5512F.B4B6BC82 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 1. draft-singh-capwap-ctp-01.txt yes =20 2. draft-iino-capwap-wicop-00.txt yes =20 3. draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-00.txt yes =20 4. draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt yes. =20 =20 Merwyn (Merv) Andrade Chief Technical Officer Work : merv@arubanetworks.com IEEE/Other : merv@usa.com http://www.arubanetworks.com/ =20 =20 Aruba Wireless Networks 1322 Crossman Ave Sunnyvale, CA 94089 Tel : (408) 754-3016 =20 Fax : (408) 227-4550 =20 =20 ------_=_NextPart_002_01C5512F.B4B6BC82 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

1. draft-singh-capwap-ctp-01.txt       &n= bsp; yes

 

2. draft-iino-capwap-wicop-00.txt        = yes

 

3. draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-00.txt    = yes

 

4. draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt       = yes.

 

 

Merwyn (Merv) Andrade

Chief Technical Officer

Work : merv@arubanetworks.com

IEEE/Other : merv@usa.com

http://www.arubanetworks.com= /

 

Aruba Wireless Networks

1322 Crossman = Ave

Sunnyvale, CA 94089

Tel : (408) 754-3016

Fax : (408) = 227-4550

 

 

------_=_NextPart_002_01C5512F.B4B6BC82-- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C5512F.B4B6BC82 Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="image001.jpg" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: Content-Description: image001.jpg Content-Location: image001.jpg Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 /9j/4AAQSkZJRgABAQEAYABgAAD//gAcU29mdHdhcmU6IE1pY3Jvc29mdCBPZmZpY2X/2wBDAAgG BgcGBQgHBwcJCQgKDBQNDAsLDBkSEw8UHRofHh0aHBwgJC4nICIsIxwcKDcpLDAxNDQ0Hyc5PTgy PC4zNDL/2wBDAQkJCQwLDBgNDRgyIRwhMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIy MjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjL/wAARCAAZAF8DASIAAhEBAxEB/8QAHAAAAgIDAQEAAAAAAAAAAAAA BQcAAwEEBgII/8QANBAAAQMDAgMFBwIHAAAAAAAAAQIDBAAFEQYSEyExB0FCktEUMlFSYZGhIjMV FhcjJHGB/8QAGQEAAwADAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAgMEAQUG/8QALBEAAgEDAgMGBwEAAAAAAAAAAQID AAQRBTESIdFCUYGRofATFTJBYXHB4f/dAAQAKP/aAAwDAQACEQMRAD8AZ12ul6larXYba60yjgpd U8U/qQO/80Av901hoxAdXJRPiLP7ziM7T8D8KFdpV2m2HWCLnb3S28hCEnHQgjoaB2jtOlyL47/M CUP2yYkNPtBOQgYwCB/2nWiF4yw5jJz59Ku06FpYS4AYAtkffkTt4bV0Fv7U7vOSoBEULT1Gw0Xi aw1RPStUSGy8Ee8Utk4/NL272AaX1a0lhZVbpzfFirPek88f7FdvZHOJZWo0iPLDBk5bkxD+pK8e IVpL0PHdcCOeEjI6VzOpo8N8Y45G4CMjp517d13qJlsOOR2EJKikFTZHMdRVB7Rr4PBE8h9aPSLW 3/CHBJULhKYekLabVy4yu/P1ArWYstpDyVmIl1M3L0dHypSjmPvSCl1kASVI0d5kASnx999CD2kX 0eCJ5D615PaTffkieQ+tEGLVBkW9N1dgNRpXs5V7GUKKc7iN23r0oOYEBzW8KIiOQw7sLrJSUjJH PAPPFLY3KgH4m/8AaUxvFAJk3x61ce0u/DwRPIfWsf1Mv3yRPIfWiMSPapKYANnYT7VIfiqIJylK M4UPrWu5Z7XGtiWSwlxKoqni+ltRXvBODu6YGMYo8XOMiSmYu8ZEvvl1q5Oub+mJIckqjR3mSj+y pg5UF+6c5rp9N3m6Tbu9EuDsVxIZLiSwnGCF7edKrUcx2bduMtDjQLDQCVAjOEDn966jspJN7uGS T/jjqc+Kjt7hzOEJJo7a6c3AjLE8+/8AdbevNKXK/XaQY8RTjK20BLgI5EClivQerLJLbmuWdx5m O4HDtIUFAHOMV9NVK3NtxW5YqeTHOK6Kyd7Nn4GyGOSDtn8UqNUyHNcMWduy2x1ao54zylI2cHlj ZzqmNp/VkJKkxY77QV7wSsYP5psp/dNWVNc2izuHJIx3VFeWaXMgcsRgYGKTqdNarQUFEaQFIKik 8QZBPU9e+iYh6oamxnmLIUNxo6mG2+LnG4c1Z+NM+pSV09V2c+nSp00tE+l29OlJxOn9ZCUiVwZJ kJTtC+IOnw61SdL6sMwTFQ31SQdwcLgJz96dNSh+Woe0aE6RGd3bz/ykonS+rm+HshvjhqUtGHBy Uep61kab1mmEqGiPJTHUSSgOjHPr306qlZGmoO0ayNJjHbb34Ujn9IarlOBx+3vOLCQkFSxyA5Ad a6zs70/dbPdZrtwhqYQ4yEpJIOTu+lMWpRxWCRuHBORRw6ZHFIJAxJFf/9k= ------_=_NextPart_001_01C5512F.B4B6BC82-- _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Thu May 5 02:54:08 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA25052 for ; Thu, 5 May 2005 02:54:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF6792060E; Thu, 5 May 2005 02:54:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60FB5205B4; Thu, 5 May 2005 02:54:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D357205B4 for ; Thu, 5 May 2005 02:53:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from aruba-server.arubanetworks.com (mail.arubanetworks.com [216.31.249.253]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 805BA20529 for ; Thu, 5 May 2005 02:53:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.1.146] ([24.6.194.144] unverified) by aruba-server.arubanetworks.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Wed, 4 May 2005 23:53:21 -0700 From: Partha Narasimhan X-X-Sender: partha@localhost.localdomain To: capwap@frascone.com Subject: Re: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 May 2005 06:53:22.0104 (UTC) FILETIME=[20903B80:01C5513F] X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 23:53:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) 1. draft-singh-capwap-ctp-01.txt yes 2. draft-iino-capwap-wicop-00.txt yes 3. draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-00.txt yes 4. draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt yes _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From smoley@yebox.com Thu May 5 07:13:39 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA13518; Thu, 5 May 2005 07:13:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from host50.foretec.com ([65.246.255.50] helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DTeWp-00048U-T4; Thu, 05 May 2005 07:28:28 -0400 Received: from hnllhi1-ar1-4-64-128-061.hnllhi1.dsl-verizon.net ([4.64.128.61]) by mx2.foretec.com with smtp (Exim 4.24) id 1DTeIU-0003wO-J8; Thu, 05 May 2005 07:13:39 -0400 Received: from pond.metabolic-ribose.com (HELO jungle.com 66.7.152.41) by supposable.com with EMQP; Thu, 05 May 2005 13:13:58 +0100 Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 13:14:58 +0100 From: "Lila Cannon" Message-Id: To: cancer@ietf.org Cc: capwap-archive@ietf.org, ccips@ietf.org, cclark@ietf.org, cdi-archive@ietf.org, cdir-admin@ietf.org, cfrg@ietf.org, cfrg-admin@ietf.org, cfrg-archive@ietf.org, cfrg-bounces@ietf.org, cfrg-web-archive@ietf.org Subject: Become a homeowner with low rates X-Mailer: CompuServe 7.0 X-Spam-Score: 20.4 (++++++++++++++++++++) X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.h0us1ng.net/sign.asp Best Regards, Normand Maurer to be remov(ed: http://www.h0us1ng.net/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From capwap-admin@frascone.com Thu May 5 08:53:06 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA22196 for ; Thu, 5 May 2005 08:53:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D955B206E0; Thu, 5 May 2005 08:53:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12618206DC; Thu, 5 May 2005 08:53:02 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 246DF206DC for ; Thu, 5 May 2005 08:52:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from maillnx-us311.fmr.com (maillnx-us311.fmr.com [192.223.178.26]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63FC5206DB for ; Thu, 5 May 2005 08:52:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MSGMROSM01WIN.dmn1.fmr.com (MSGMROSM01WIN.dmn1.fmr.com [172.26.7.127]) by maillnx-us311.fmr.com (Switch-3.1.2/Switch-3.1.0) with SMTP id j45Cq9IC032661 for ; Thu, 5 May 2005 08:52:09 -0400 Received: from MSGMROIV02WIN.DMN1.FMR.COM (10.37.74.75) by MSGMROSM01WIN.dmn1.fmr.com (Sigaba Gateway v3.83) with ESMTP id 28612985; Thu, 05 May 2005 08:52:09 -0400 Received: from MSGMROIM02WIN.DMN1.FMR.COM ([172.26.2.195]) by MSGMROIV02WIN.DMN1.FMR.COM with SMTP_server; Thu, 05 May 2005 08:52:09 -0400 Received: from msgmmkclm2win.fmr.com ([10.33.181.24]) by MSGMROIM02WIN.DMN1.FMR.COM with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Thu, 5 May 2005 08:52:08 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6603.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate Thread-Index: AcVRL1TvN9vN4libQuOsELUAVPt+vgAQdNeg From: "Finn, Ed" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 May 2005 12:52:08.0689 (UTC) FILETIME=[3F686E10:01C55171] X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 08:52:08 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 1. draft-singh-capwap-ctp-01.txt yes 2. draft-iino-capwap-wicop-00.txt yes 3. draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-00.txt no 4. draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt yes _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Thu May 5 09:02:07 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA22881 for ; Thu, 5 May 2005 09:02:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFF5C206E1; Thu, 5 May 2005 09:02:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A408206DC; Thu, 5 May 2005 09:02:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2538206DC for ; Thu, 5 May 2005 09:01:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.colubris.com (mail.colubris.com [206.162.167.228]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEAD9206DB for ; Thu, 5 May 2005 09:01:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.colubris.com ([192.168.32.14]) by mail.colubris.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Thu, 5 May 2005 09:01:16 -0400 Received: from email2.colubris.com ([192.168.32.21]) by mail.colubris.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Thu, 5 May 2005 08:50:43 -0400 Received: from [10.0.0.20] ([10.0.0.20]) by email2.colubris.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Thu, 5 May 2005 08:50:43 -0400 Message-ID: <427A160C.10000@colubris.com> From: Oleg Volinsky User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: capwap@frascone.com Subject: RE: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 May 2005 12:50:43.0027 (UTC) FILETIME=[0C597230:01C55171] X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 08:48:12 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 1. draft-singh-capwap-ctp-01.txt yes 2. draft-iino-capwap-wicop-00.txt yes 3. draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-00.txt no 4. draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt yes _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Thu May 5 12:20:07 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15495 for ; Thu, 5 May 2005 12:20:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4CCB206EA; Thu, 5 May 2005 12:20:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4531206E3; Thu, 5 May 2005 12:20:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B0742027E for ; Thu, 5 May 2005 12:20:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A95592023B for ; Thu, 5 May 2005 12:19:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (171.71.177.238) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 May 2005 09:00:17 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: i="3.92,157,1112598000"; d="scan'208,217"; a="260149349:sNHT3456853916" Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j45FxtQ6024525; Thu, 5 May 2005 09:00:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.174]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Thu, 5 May 2005 09:00:14 -0700 Received: from gdommety-w2k05.cisco.com ([10.21.144.251]) by xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Thu, 5 May 2005 09:00:19 -0700 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20050505085824.02e1c008@email.cisco.com> X-Sender: gdommety@email.cisco.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 X-Priority: 1 (Highest) To: "Mani, Mahalingam (Mahalingam)" From: Gopal Dommety Subject: Re: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate Cc: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_163772532==_.ALT" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 May 2005 16:00:21.0381 (UTC) FILETIME=[8A607B50:01C5518B] X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 09:00:02 -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) --=====================_163772532==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed 1. draft-singh-capwap-ctp-01.txt yes 2. draft-iino-capwap-wicop-00.txt yes 3. draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-00.txt no 4. draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt yes -Gopal At 05:22 PM 4/25/2005 -0600, Mani, Mahalingam (Mahalingam) wrote: >Dear all in WG: > > > >We have 4 protocols submitted to the WG for consideration. > >Evaluating each protocol is quite some effort. So we should > >be sure we want to undertake that work. The WG chairs would > >like to hear/gauge WG consensus as to which protocols the > >WG wants to evaluate against the objectives. > > > >We do not ask for extensive or repeated argumentation. > >We prefer a simple yes/no answer. > > > >These are the protocols that have been submitted. > > > > 1. draft-singh-capwap-ctp-01.txt yes/no > > 2. draft-iino-capwap-wicop-00.txt yes/no > > 3. draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-00.txt yes/no > > 4. draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt yes/no > > > >So, do send a simple response to the list with the above 4 lines > >in the body with your yes/no answer. And we need this no later than > >by May 5th. > > > >It is important that as many WG participants express their opinion > >so that we can properly gauge consensus as opposed to being forced > >to decide on a small number of opinions. > > > >Thanks, > >WG chairs & AD > > --=====================_163772532==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"   

   1. draft-singh-capwap-ctp-01.txt         yes

  2. draft-iino-capwap-wicop-00.txt        yes

  3. draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-00.txt    no

  4. draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt       yes


-Gopal




At 05:22 PM 4/25/2005 -0600, Mani, Mahalingam (Mahalingam) wrote:

Dear all in WG:

 

We have 4 protocols submitted to the WG for consideration.

Evaluating each protocol is quite some effort. So we should

be sure we want to undertake that work. The WG chairs would

like to hear/gauge WG consensus as to which protocols the

WG wants to evaluate against the objectives.

 

We do not ask for extensive or repeated argumentation.

We prefer a simple yes/no answer.

 

These are the protocols that have been submitted.

 

  1. draft-singh-capwap-ctp-01.txt         yes/no

  2. draft-iino-capwap-wicop-00.txt        yes/no

  3. draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-00.txt    yes/no

  4. draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt       yes/no

 

So, do send a simple response to the list with the above 4 lines

in the body with your yes/no answer. And we need this no later than

by May 5th.

 

It is important that as many WG participants express their opinion

so that we can properly gauge consensus as opposed to being forced

to decide on a small number of opinions.

 

Thanks,

WG chairs & AD

 
--=====================_163772532==_.ALT-- _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Thu May 5 12:56:06 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA18223 for ; Thu, 5 May 2005 12:56:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D1FA206E7; Thu, 5 May 2005 12:56:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B1492027E; Thu, 5 May 2005 12:56:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14D932027E for ; Thu, 5 May 2005 12:55:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from WNIMAIL.WoodsideNet.Com (wnifwl.woodsidenet.com [65.192.186.2]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28D392025A for ; Thu, 5 May 2005 12:55:44 -0400 (EDT) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate Message-ID: <3FFBC907DD03A34CA4410C5C745DEB12064D9801@wnimail.WoodsideNet.Com> Thread-Topic: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate Thread-Index: AcVPd9Y9F5jOsjuQTXiH9iUy72yDbAAfSDbgAEmQlZAAHWfiYA== From: "Paul Lambert" To: "Cheng Hong" , "Mani, Mahalingam (Mahalingam)" , "subrata goswami" , X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 09:55:36 -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Just a bit curious about the polling here. How should we=20 > gauge if there is a consensus? Do we have a number threshold=20 > set somewhere (e.g. how big is the voting pool, how many=20 > percent constitutes a consensus)?=20 I believe for consensus definitions, the IETF rejects=20 the Robert's Rules style of consensus (voting) and try's to emulate the spirit of the Quaker-Consensus: http://www.earlham.edu/~consense/rrocomp.shtml Paul > -----Original Message----- > From: capwap-admin@frascone.com=20 > [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] On Behalf Of Cheng Hong > Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 8:14 PM > To: Mani, Mahalingam (Mahalingam); subrata goswami;=20 > capwap@frascone.com > Subject: RE: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate >=20 > Hi Mani, >=20 > Just a bit curious about the polling here. How should we=20 > gauge if there is a consensus? Do we have a number threshold=20 > set somewhere (e.g. how big is the voting pool, how many=20 > percent constitutes a consensus)?=20 >=20 > Usually, in other organizations, the no vote should have a=20 > technical reason attached. Should we also enforce it here? At=20 > least, we will know if votes from some temporary account are valid. >=20 > cheers >=20 > Cheng >=20 >=20 >=20 > =20 >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: capwap-admin@frascone.com > > [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] On Behalf Of Mani, Mahalingam=20 > > (Mahalingam) > > Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 11:39 PM > > To: subrata goswami; capwap@frascone.com > > Subject: RE: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate > >=20 > > The motivation for the polling has been to gauge the rough WG=20 > > consensus for the evaluation stage accurately. Since we are=20 > on mailing=20 > > list until July - we have taken this approach. > >=20 > > Thanks to all who have opined on the poll; we once again=20 > urge all else=20 > > to poll-in soon. > >=20 > > -mani > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > > -----Original Message----- > > From: capwap-admin@frascone.com > > [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] On Behalf Of subrata goswami > > Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 5:34 PM > > To: capwap@frascone.com > > Subject: Re: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate > >=20 > > i do not remember seeing how the result of the votes will be=20 > > evaluated. > > can anyone throw some > > light on this please ? > >=20 > > dr. subrata goswami > >=20 > > Dorothy.Gellert@nokia.com wrote: > >=20 > > > Hi Paul- > > > =20 > > > The result of this poll gives us the individual protocols > > that we will > >=20 > > > evaluate as a *baseline* protocol for CAPWAP WG item. From > > there we > > > can update and change mechanisms as with any WG item. > > > =20 > > > This poll is meant to determine that all protocols selected for=20 > > > evaluation meet the scope and charter of the WG. > > > =20 > > > If one protocol is not accepted for evaluation as a > > baseline protocol, > > > certainly portions of that protocol can be submitted to the WG to=20 > > > better address the objectives. Once we have a baseline CAPWAP=20 > > > protocol as a WG item, we can update or add sections as needed. > > > =20 > > > Regards, > > > Dorothy > > > =20 > > > =20 > > > -----Original Message----- > > > *From:* capwap-admin@frascone.com > > > [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com]*On Behalf Of *ext Paul Lambert > > > *Sent:* Monday, April 25, 2005 6:55 PM > > > *To:* Yang, Lily L; capwap@frascone.com > > > *Subject:* RE: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate > > > > > > What if we don't like any of them? Can we mix and match > > sections from > >=20 > > > each? > > > =20 > > > Paul > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > ---------- > > > *From:* capwap-admin@frascone.com > > > [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] *On Behalf Of *Yang, Lily L > > > *Sent:* Monday, April 25, 2005 6:36 PM > > > *To:* capwap@frascone.com > > > *Subject:* RE: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate > > > > > > 1. draft-singh-capwap-ctp-01.txt yes > > > > > > 2. draft-iino-capwap-wicop-00.txt yes > > > > > > 3. draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-00.txt yes > > > > > > 4. draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt yes > > > > > > =20 > > > > > > Lily > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > ---------- > > > > > > *From:* capwap-admin@frascone.com > > > [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] *On Behalf Of *Mani, > > Mahalingam > > > (Mahalingam) > > > *Sent:* Monday, April 25, 2005 4:23 PM > > > *To:* capwap@frascone.com > > > *Subject:* [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate > > > *Importance:* High > > > > > > =20 > > > > > > Dear all in WG: > > > > > > =20 > > > > > > We have 4 protocols submitted to the WG for consideration. > > > > > > Evaluating each protocol is quite some effort. So we should > > > > > > be sure we want to undertake that work. The WG chairs would > > > > > > like to hear/gauge WG consensus as to which protocols the > > > > > > WG wants to evaluate against the objectives. > > > > > > =20 > > > > > > We do not ask for extensive or repeated argumentation. > > > > > > We prefer a simple yes/no answer. > > > > > > =20 > > > > > > These are the protocols that have been submitted. > > > > > > =20 > > > > > > 1. draft-singh-capwap-ctp-01.txt yes/no > > > > > > 2. draft-iino-capwap-wicop-00.txt yes/no > > > > > > 3. draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-00.txt yes/no > > > > > > 4. draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt yes/no > > > > > > =20 > > > > > > So, do send a simple response to the list with the=20 > above 4 lines > > > > > > in the body with your yes/no answer. And we need this no later > > than > > > > > > by May 5th. > > > > > > =20 > > > > > > It is important that as many WG participants express > > their opinion > > > > > > so that we can properly gauge consensus as opposed to > > being forced > > > > > > to decide on a small number of opinions. > > > > > > =20 > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > WG chairs & AD > > > > > > =20 > > > > >=20 > > _______________________________________________ > > Capwap mailing list > > Capwap@frascone.com > > http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > >=20 > >=20 > > _______________________________________________ > > Capwap mailing list > > Capwap@frascone.com > > http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Capwap mailing list > Capwap@frascone.com > http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap >=20 _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Thu May 5 14:02:10 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA24795 for ; Thu, 5 May 2005 14:02:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5E5820371; Thu, 5 May 2005 14:02:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87DD620392; Thu, 5 May 2005 14:02:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F10A20319 for ; Thu, 5 May 2005 14:01:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from web81210.mail.yahoo.com (web81210.mail.yahoo.com [206.190.37.183]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with SMTP id A2EDA2027E for ; Thu, 5 May 2005 14:01:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20050505180130.19893.qmail@web81210.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [216.31.249.246] by web81210.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 05 May 2005 11:01:30 PDT From: Vinay Anneboina To: capwap@frascone.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Subject: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 11:01:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) 1. draft-singh-capwap-ctp-01.txt yes 2. draft-iino-capwap-wicop-00.txt yes 3. draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-00.txt yes 4. draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt no Vinay _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Thu May 5 14:45:08 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA28910 for ; Thu, 5 May 2005 14:45:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 764CB203E0; Thu, 5 May 2005 14:45:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5711B2045C; Thu, 5 May 2005 14:45:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E1EE203E0 for ; Thu, 5 May 2005 14:44:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from motgate7.mot.com (motgate7.mot.com [129.188.136.7]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6DB020371 for ; Thu, 5 May 2005 14:44:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from az33exr01.mot.com (az33exr01.mot.com [10.64.251.231]) by motgate7.mot.com (Motorola/Motgate7) with ESMTP id j45IXTTM022335 for ; Thu, 5 May 2005 11:33:29 -0700 (MST) Received: from ma19exm01.e6.bcs.mot.com (ma19exm01.e6.bcs.mot.com [10.14.33.5]) by az33exr01.mot.com (8.13.1/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j45IleQA025867 for ; Thu, 5 May 2005 13:47:41 -0500 (CDT) Received: by ma19exm01.e6.bcs.mot.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Thu, 5 May 2005 14:44:41 -0400 Message-ID: <62173B970AE0A044AED8723C3BCF238109316BD6@ma19exm01.e6.bcs.mot.com> From: Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 To: capwap@frascone.com MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Subject: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 14:44:40 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) 1. draft-singh-capwap-ctp-01.txt yes 2. draft-iino-capwap-wicop-00.txt yes 3. draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-00.txt no 4. draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt yes Thanks, Donald _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Thu May 5 16:11:06 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA07813 for ; Thu, 5 May 2005 16:11:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2995206E4; Thu, 5 May 2005 16:11:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47314203E0; Thu, 5 May 2005 16:11:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA9D8203E0 for ; Thu, 5 May 2005 16:10:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from tierw.net.avaya.com (tierw.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27F9F1FE1E for ; Thu, 5 May 2005 16:10:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from tierw.net.avaya.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tierw.net.avaya.com (Switch-3.1.2/Switch-3.1.0) with ESMTP id j45JxcSp026415 for ; Thu, 5 May 2005 15:59:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cof110avexu1.global.avaya.com (h135-9-6-16.avaya.com [135.9.6.16]) by tierw.net.avaya.com (Switch-3.1.2/Switch-3.1.0) with ESMTP id j45JxaSp026366 for ; Thu, 5 May 2005 15:59:37 -0400 (EDT) x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6603.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate Thread-Index: AcVPd9Y9F5jOsjuQTXiH9iUy72yDbAAfSDbgAEmQlZAAH5kWIA== From: "Mani, Mahalingam (Mahalingam)" To: "Cheng Hong" , "subrata goswami" , X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 14:10:47 -0600 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cheng, I had already answered this. The intent of the poll is to ensure IETF-style rough consensus - on choice of proposals to evaluate. This was motivated by concerns about whether we are hearing a WG-wide call for explicit elimination of any protocol up front or running it through the evaluation phase as described in http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/05mar/slides/capwap-0/sld5.htm and http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/05mar/slides/capwap-0/sld6.htm Since there's no voting pool; and since IETF does not have the notion of formal membership; we will not go by any (be they mailing list or attendance in meetings) hard threshold. However, if it interests anyone, we have seen meeting strengths between 70-120 for the WG. The mailing list is about 500 strong. Paul Lambert's later email equating this to Quaker's rule comes quite close. Regards, -mani =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D -----Original Message----- From: Cheng Hong [mailto:hcheng@psl.com.sg]=20 Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 8:14 PM To: Mani, Mahalingam (Mahalingam); subrata goswami; capwap@frascone.com Subject: RE: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate Hi Mani, Just a bit curious about the polling here. How should we gauge if there is a consensus? Do we have a number threshold set somewhere (e.g. how big is the voting pool, how many percent constitutes a consensus)?=20 Usually, in other organizations, the no vote should have a technical reason attached. Should we also enforce it here? At least, we will know if votes from some temporary account are valid. cheers Cheng =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: capwap-admin@frascone.com=20 > [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] On Behalf Of Mani,=20 > Mahalingam (Mahalingam) > Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 11:39 PM > To: subrata goswami; capwap@frascone.com > Subject: RE: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate >=20 > The motivation for the polling has been to gauge the rough WG=20 > consensus for the evaluation stage accurately. Since we are=20 > on mailing list until July - we have taken this approach. >=20 > Thanks to all who have opined on the poll; we once again urge=20 > all else to poll-in soon. >=20 > -mani > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > -----Original Message----- > From: capwap-admin@frascone.com=20 > [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] On Behalf Of subrata goswami > Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 5:34 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: Re: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate >=20 > i do not remember seeing how the result of the votes will be=20 > evaluated.=20 > can anyone throw some > light on this please ? >=20 > dr. subrata goswami >=20 > Dorothy.Gellert@nokia.com wrote: >=20 > > Hi Paul- > > =20 > > The result of this poll gives us the individual protocols=20 > that we will >=20 > > evaluate as a *baseline* protocol for CAPWAP WG item. From=20 > there we=20 > > can update and change mechanisms as with any WG item. > > =20 > > This poll is meant to determine that all protocols selected for=20 > > evaluation meet the scope and charter of the WG. > > =20 > > If one protocol is not accepted for evaluation as a=20 > baseline protocol,=20 > > certainly portions of that protocol can be submitted to the WG to=20 > > better address the objectives. Once we have a baseline CAPWAP=20 > > protocol as a WG item, we can update or add sections as needed. > > =20 > > Regards, > > Dorothy > > =20 > > =20 > > -----Original Message----- > > *From:* capwap-admin@frascone.com > > [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com]*On Behalf Of *ext Paul Lambert > > *Sent:* Monday, April 25, 2005 6:55 PM > > *To:* Yang, Lily L; capwap@frascone.com > > *Subject:* RE: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate > > > > What if we don't like any of them? Can we mix and match=20 > sections from >=20 > > each? > > =20 > > Paul > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- > > *From:* capwap-admin@frascone.com > > [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] *On Behalf Of *Yang, Lily L > > *Sent:* Monday, April 25, 2005 6:36 PM > > *To:* capwap@frascone.com > > *Subject:* RE: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate > > > > 1. draft-singh-capwap-ctp-01.txt yes > > > > 2. draft-iino-capwap-wicop-00.txt yes > > > > 3. draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-00.txt yes > > > > 4. draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt yes > > > > =20 > > > > Lily > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- > > > > *From:* capwap-admin@frascone.com > > [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] *On Behalf Of *Mani,=20 > Mahalingam > > (Mahalingam) > > *Sent:* Monday, April 25, 2005 4:23 PM > > *To:* capwap@frascone.com > > *Subject:* [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate > > *Importance:* High > > > > =20 > > > > Dear all in WG: > > > > =20 > > > > We have 4 protocols submitted to the WG for consideration. > > > > Evaluating each protocol is quite some effort. So we should > > > > be sure we want to undertake that work. The WG chairs would > > > > like to hear/gauge WG consensus as to which protocols the > > > > WG wants to evaluate against the objectives. > > > > =20 > > > > We do not ask for extensive or repeated argumentation. > > > > We prefer a simple yes/no answer. > > > > =20 > > > > These are the protocols that have been submitted. > > > > =20 > > > > 1. draft-singh-capwap-ctp-01.txt yes/no > > > > 2. draft-iino-capwap-wicop-00.txt yes/no > > > > 3. draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-00.txt yes/no > > > > 4. draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt yes/no > > > > =20 > > > > So, do send a simple response to the list with the above 4 lines > > > > in the body with your yes/no answer. And we need this no later > than > > > > by May 5th. > > > > =20 > > > > It is important that as many WG participants express=20 > their opinion > > > > so that we can properly gauge consensus as opposed to=20 > being forced > > > > to decide on a small number of opinions. > > > > =20 > > > > Thanks, > > > > WG chairs & AD > > > > =20 > > >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Capwap mailing list > Capwap@frascone.com > http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Capwap mailing list > Capwap@frascone.com > http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap >=20 _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Thu May 5 20:02:08 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA09389 for ; Thu, 5 May 2005 20:02:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 057A71FE0A; Thu, 5 May 2005 20:02:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 712181FD6C; Thu, 5 May 2005 20:02:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C6F41FD6C for ; Thu, 5 May 2005 20:01:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from tierw.net.avaya.com (tierw.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47B711FD3E for ; Thu, 5 May 2005 20:01:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from tierw.net.avaya.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tierw.net.avaya.com (Switch-3.1.2/Switch-3.1.0) with ESMTP id j45No7Sp011340 for ; Thu, 5 May 2005 19:50:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cof110avexu1.global.avaya.com (h135-9-6-16.avaya.com [135.9.6.16]) by tierw.net.avaya.com (Switch-3.1.2/Switch-3.1.0) with ESMTP id j45No6Sp011306 for ; Thu, 5 May 2005 19:50:06 -0400 (EDT) x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6603.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C551CE.B9C5315B" Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Evaluation Polling status Thread-Index: AcVRzrewyjPC1PfOQJSNfiKE3THHPw== X-Priority: 1 Priority: Urgent Importance: high From: "Mani, Mahalingam (Mahalingam)" To: X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Subject: [Capwap] Evaluation Polling status Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 18:01:17 -0600 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C551CE.B9C5315B Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The URL has been slightly renamed to be http://ietf.webdav.org/capwap/eval_protocol_poll.htm =20 At this time we have received 36 responses (including one of them recd. is addressed to me and cc'ed to list; should arrive to the list a little late). =20 Anyway - as mentioned earlier - take the poll to be in the spirit of what it means than what it counts up to. =20 Regards, -Chairs =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C551CE.B9C5315B Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

The URL has been slightly renamed to be http://ietf= .webdav.org/capwap/eval_protocol_poll.htm

 

At this time we have received 36 responses (including = one of them recd. is addressed to me and  cc’ed to list; should = arrive to the list a little late).

 

Anyway – as mentioned earlier - take the poll = to be in the spirit of what it means than what it counts up = to.

 

Regards,

-Chairs

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

 

------_=_NextPart_001_01C551CE.B9C5315B-- _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Thu May 5 23:46:06 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA00090 for ; Thu, 5 May 2005 23:46:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36AC220270; Thu, 5 May 2005 23:46:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75BAE20252; Thu, 5 May 2005 23:46:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F40F920252 for ; Thu, 5 May 2005 23:45:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from wbapiron02.worldbank.org (wbapiron02.worldbank.org [192.86.98.58]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3614A1FFF2 for ; Thu, 5 May 2005 23:45:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from wbln0014.worldbank.org (138.220.29.7) by wbapiron02.worldbank.org with ESMTP; 05 May 2005 23:45:27 -0400 X-SBRS: None X-IronPort-AV: i="3.92,158,1112587200"; d="scan'208"; a="18772249:sNHT18525856" Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Subject: [Capwap] Selecting Protocols to evaluate MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Laustin@worldbank.org To: capwap@frascone.com X-MIMETrack: MIME-CD by Notes Server on NOTES002/Facility/World Bank(Release 6.5.2|June 01, 2004) at 05/05/2005 11:45:20 PM, MIME-CD complete at 05/05/2005 11:45:20 PM, Serialize by Router on WBLN0014/Facility/World Bank(Release 6.5.3FP1|December 15, 2004) at 05/05/2005 11:45:27 PM Message-ID: Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 23:45:20 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) 1. draft-singh-capwap-ctp-01.txt yes 2. draft-iino-capwap-wicop-00.txt yes 3. draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-00.txt no 4. draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt yes Thanks, -l _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From south@yebox.com Fri May 6 14:30:22 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA20588; Fri, 6 May 2005 14:30:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ahd172.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl ([83.25.185.172]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DU7p1-0007gc-9O; Fri, 06 May 2005 14:45:26 -0400 Delivered-To: growl@dynamo.dreamhost.com Received: from boisterous.dreamhost.com by housebreak.dreamhost.com (Pingofix) with ESMTP id 2CC8A19D3B for ; Fri, 06 May 2005 20:16:42 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 16:22:42 -0300 From: "Shawna Ellis" To: Subject: Approved mortage rate X-Mailer: Mailman v2.0.9 X-SpamTest-Info: Profile: Formal (167/041162) X-SpamTest-Info: Profile: Detect Hard No RBL (4/030511) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3 Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.trust1ng.com/sign.asp Best Regards, Terrie Bowles to be remov(ed: http://www.trust1ng.com/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From doktmac@emailaccount.com Sat May 7 05:13:39 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA23306; Sat, 7 May 2005 05:13:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [211.175.131.253] (helo=132.151.6.1) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DULc8-0006YN-Td; Sat, 07 May 2005 05:28:51 -0400 Authentication-Results: diploid.es from=premium.tree.es; domainkeys=neutral (no sig) X-Originating-IP: [50.246.43.240] Received: from premium.aboard.es (EHLO premium.altern.es) by premium.wyatt.es with SMTP; Sat, 07 May 2005 06:10:54 -0400 Date: Sat, 07 May 2005 06:11:54 -0400 From: "Judy Morse" To: calsch@ietf.org Cc: cancer@ietf.org, capwap-archive@ietf.org, ccips@ietf.org, cclark@ietf.org, cdi-archive@ietf.org, cdir-admin@ietf.org, cfrg@ietf.org, cfrg-admin@ietf.org, cfrg-archive@ietf.org, cfrg-bounces@ietf.org, cfrg-web-archive@ietf.org, chair@ietf.org Subject: High rates? Not with us! low fixed rate Message-ID: <118641.5145.doktmac@emailaccount.com> X-Mailer: Kana Connect 6 X-Spam-Score: 3.6 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3 Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.trust1ng.com/sign.asp Best Regards, Caleb Bonilla to be remov(ed: http://www.trust1ng.com/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From capwap-admin@frascone.com Sat May 7 21:33:09 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA05830 for ; Sat, 7 May 2005 21:33:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D04920448; Sat, 7 May 2005 21:33:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA1672034C; Sat, 7 May 2005 21:33:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D1AD2034C for ; Sat, 7 May 2005 21:32:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from huawei.com (usaga01-in.huawei.com [63.250.163.245]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5ECD1FE1E for ; Sat, 7 May 2005 21:32:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from huawei.com (usaga01-in [172.18.4.6]) by usaga01-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.25 (built Mar 3 2004)) with ESMTP id <0IG500KLQDGDLM@usaga01-in.huawei.com> for capwap@frascone.com; Sat, 07 May 2005 18:29:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huawei.com ([172.17.1.218]) by usaga01-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.25 (built Mar 3 2004)) with ESMTP id <0IG500MX4DGCI6@usaga01-in.huawei.com> for capwap@frascone.com; Sat, 07 May 2005 18:29:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.24.1.3] (Forwarded-For: [10.78.68.155]) by szxmc02-in.huawei.com (mshttpd); Sun, 08 May 2005 09:33:09 +0800 From: Yao Zhonghui 4776 To: capwap@frascone.com Message-id: <9fad419f6356.9f63569fad41@huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: iPlanet Messenger Express 5.2 HotFix 1.25 (built Mar 3 2004) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-language: zh-CN Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline X-Accept-Language: zh-CN Priority: normal X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Subject: [Capwap] Re: Selecting Protocols to evaluate Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 08 May 2005 09:33:09 +0800 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT 1. draft-singh-capwap-ctp-01.txt yes 2. draft-iino-capwap-wicop-00.txt yes 3. draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-00.txt yes 4. draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt yes Zhonghui Yao _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From hayan@emailaccount.com Sun May 8 13:29:12 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA01942; Sun, 8 May 2005 13:29:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 229-28-112.adsl.terra.cl ([200.112.28.229]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DUppT-0001NB-DO; Sun, 08 May 2005 13:44:42 -0400 Delivered-To: stupid@tirade.dreamhost.com Received: from embryonic.dreamhost.com by lowboy.dreamhost.com (Pingofix) with ESMTP id 4CC9A82D1B for ; Sun, 08 May 2005 20:28:37 +0200 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 08 May 2005 15:23:37 -0300 From: "Adele Gutierrez" To: Subject: Become a homeowner with low rates X-Mailer: Mailman v2.0.1 X-SpamTest-Info: Profile: Formal (167/041180) X-SpamTest-Info: Profile: Detect Hard No RBL (4/030517) X-Spam-Score: 2.6 (++) X-Scan-Signature: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3 Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.trust1ng.com/sign.asp Best Regards, Jame Cobb to be remov(ed: http://www.trust1ng.com/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From caviars@emailaccount.com Sun May 8 14:40:13 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09640; Sun, 8 May 2005 14:40:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from host50.foretec.com ([65.246.255.50] helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DUqwF-00034p-B4; Sun, 08 May 2005 14:55:40 -0400 Received: from [210.78.88.53] (helo=65.246.255.50) by mx2.foretec.com with smtp (Exim 4.24) id 1DUqgx-0003HB-6b; Sun, 08 May 2005 14:39:52 -0400 X-Apparently-To: calsch@ietf.org X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 Received: from vanity.managerial.pochta.ru ([unix socket]) by amsterdam.descant.pochta.ru (Cyrus v2.2.7) with LMTPA; Sun, 08 May 2005 22:30:40 +0300 Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 01:33:40 +0600 From: "Angel Gilliam" Message-Id: X-Accept-Language: en,zh-TW,zh-CN,zh,ja,ko,tr,ru To: calsch@ietf.org Cc: cancer@ietf.org, capwap-archive@ietf.org, ccips@ietf.org, cclark@ietf.org, cdi-archive@ietf.org, cdir-admin@ietf.org, cfrg@ietf.org, cfrg-admin@ietf.org, cfrg-archive@ietf.org, cfrg-bounces@ietf.org, cfrg-web-archive@ietf.org, chair@ietf.org Subject: High rates? Not with us! low fixed rate X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564 X-Spam-Score: 15.5 (+++++++++++++++) X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.trust1ng.com/sign.asp Best Regards, Luis Terrell to be remov(ed: http://www.trust1ng.com/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From capwap-admin@frascone.com Sun May 8 16:49:07 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA29996 for ; Sun, 8 May 2005 16:49:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76C4B20396; Sun, 8 May 2005 16:49:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43A6920230; Sun, 8 May 2005 16:49:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D831420230 for ; Sun, 8 May 2005 16:48:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from tomts40-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts40.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.97]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB28F1FE14 for ; Sun, 8 May 2005 16:48:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from wxp26 ([69.158.16.23]) by tomts40-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.10 201-253-122-130-110-20040306) with ESMTP id <20050508204840.FPDP27737.tomts40-srv.bellnexxia.net@wxp26> for ; Sun, 8 May 2005 16:48:40 -0400 From: "Michael Montemurro" To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 Thread-Index: AcVUD4y3uyiS0puqSIelCkgGqE1U5A== X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Message-Id: <20050508204840.FPDP27737.tomts40-srv.bellnexxia.net@wxp26> X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Subject: [Capwap] Testing....Please ignore Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 16:52:22 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Test _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From cheeseboro@emailaccount.com Tue May 10 12:27:52 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA11157; Tue, 10 May 2005 12:27:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [211.116.28.205] (helo=132.151.6.1) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DVXpg-0003Cy-1t; Tue, 10 May 2005 12:43:45 -0400 Received: from entertain-jcoppens.com (EHLO sheave.jcoppens.com) by sturgeon.jcoppens.com with SMTP; Tue, 10 May 2005 11:23:07 -0600 Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 13:17:07 -0400 From: "Delores Lilly" To: bounces-ietf@ietf.org Cc: bpana@ietf.org, brenton.daniels@ietf.org, bridge-mib@ietf.org, bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org, business@ietf.org, calsch@ietf.org, cancer@ietf.org, capwap-archive@ietf.org, ccips@ietf.org, cclark@ietf.org, cdi-archive@ietf.org, cdir-admin@ietf.org, cfrg@ietf.org, cfrg-admin@ietf.org, cfrg-archive@ietf.org Subject: Approved mortage rate Message-ID: X-SpamTest-Info: Profile: SysLog X-SpamTest-Status: Not detected X-SpamTest-Version: SMTP-Filter Version 2.0.0 [990], SpamtestISP/Release X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.41 (Entity 5.404) X-Spam-Score: 6.7 (++++++) X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Scan-Signature: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3 Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.trust1ng.net/sign.asp Best Regards, Tommie Wu to be remov(ed: http://www.trust1ng.net/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From gazzola@doramail.com Tue May 10 13:12:52 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA19906; Tue, 10 May 2005 13:12:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from host50.foretec.com ([65.246.255.50] helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DVYXF-00079g-Ce; Tue, 10 May 2005 13:28:46 -0400 Received: from charlebourg-12-82-228-68-176.fbx.proxad.net ([82.228.68.176]) by mx2.foretec.com with smtp (Exim 4.24) id 1DVYHb-0004pC-0n; Tue, 10 May 2005 13:12:35 -0400 Authentication-Results: accountant.es from=premium.stymie.es; domainkeys=neutral (no sig) X-Originating-IP: [82.54.10.0] Received: from premium.salaried.es (EHLO premium.maim.es) by premium.hague.es with SMTP; Wed, 11 May 2005 00:05:45 +0600 Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 21:06:45 +0300 From: "Suzanne Roe" To: bofchairs@ietf.org Cc: bounces-ietf@ietf.org, bpana@ietf.org, brenton.daniels@ietf.org, bridge-mib@ietf.org, bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org, business@ietf.org, calsch@ietf.org, cancer@ietf.org, capwap-archive@ietf.org, ccips@ietf.org, cclark@ietf.org, cdi-archive@ietf.org Subject: Re-finance at todays low rate Message-ID: <119141.1470.gazzola@doramail.com> X-Mailer: Kana Connect 6 X-Spam-Score: 1.5 (+) X-Scan-Signature: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3 Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.trust1ng.net/sign.asp Best Regards, Matthew Cabrera to be remov(ed: http://www.trust1ng.net/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From knocker@didamail.com Wed May 11 11:48:16 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA16336; Wed, 11 May 2005 11:48:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from host50.foretec.com ([65.246.255.50] helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DVth9-00064w-Ei; Wed, 11 May 2005 12:04:23 -0400 Received: from [219.151.201.93] (helo=65.246.255.50) by mx2.foretec.com with smtp (Exim 4.24) id 1DVsVR-0000xD-EK; Wed, 11 May 2005 10:48:16 -0400 Authentication-Results: catchup.es from=premium.chilblain.es; domainkeys=neutral (no sig) X-Originating-IP: [58.2.188.240] Received: from premium.bay.es (EHLO premium.gator.es) by premium.visitation.es with SMTP; Wed, 11 May 2005 13:36:06 -0300 Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 18:44:06 +0200 From: "Denver Mcclendon" To: bmwg-archive@ietf.org Cc: bofchairs@ietf.org, bounces-ietf@ietf.org, bpana@ietf.org, brenton.daniels@ietf.org, bridge-mib@ietf.org, bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org, business@ietf.org, calsch@ietf.org, cancer@ietf.org, capwap-archive@ietf.org, ccips@ietf.org Subject: Rates fixed wont last long Message-ID: <116141.8867.knocker@didamail.com> X-Mailer: Kana Connect 6 X-Spam-Score: 3.4 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3 Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.trust1ng.net/sign.asp Best Regards, Rogelio Cole to be remov(ed: http://www.trust1ng.net/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From birdie@emailaccount.com Wed May 11 14:30:20 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA02622; Wed, 11 May 2005 14:30:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pc-228-12-83-200.cm.vtr.net ([200.83.12.228]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DVwDu-0006YK-UF; Wed, 11 May 2005 14:46:27 -0400 Delivered-To: traffic@coiffure.dreamhost.com Received: from cookery.dreamhost.com by rupee.dreamhost.com (Pingofix) with ESMTP id 0CC1A01D5B for ; Wed, 11 May 2005 13:24:19 -0600 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 16:18:19 -0300 From: "Kellie Albert" To: Subject: Pre-approved Application #TOUDI976 X-Mailer: Mailman v2.0.4 X-SpamTest-Info: Profile: Formal (167/041175) X-SpamTest-Info: Profile: Detect Hard No RBL (4/030535) X-Spam-Score: 6.0 (++++++) X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Scan-Signature: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3 Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.trust1ng.net/sign.asp Best Regards, Arnold Hatch to be remov(ed: http://www.trust1ng.net/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From melvyl@didamail.com Wed May 11 14:45:18 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA05543; Wed, 11 May 2005 14:45:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pcp03651610pcs.alico01.fl.comcast.net ([68.54.202.154]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DVwSS-0007gJ-Jn; Wed, 11 May 2005 15:01:25 -0400 X-Apparently-To: cancer@ietf.org X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 Received: from jacket.coralberry.pochta.ru ([unix socket]) by mcgill.trite.pochta.ru (Cyrus v2.2.0) with LMTPA; Wed, 11 May 2005 15:44:40 -0400 Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 15:46:40 -0400 From: "Juliette Fletcher" Message-Id: X-Accept-Language: en,zh-TW,zh-CN,zh,ja,ko,tr,ru To: cancer@ietf.org Cc: capwap-archive@ietf.org, ccips@ietf.org, cclark@ietf.org, cdi-archive@ietf.org, cdir-admin@ietf.org, cfrg@ietf.org, cfrg-admin@ietf.org, cfrg-archive@ietf.org Subject: Pre-approved Application #XRWMI721 X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564 X-Spam-Score: 18.9 (++++++++++++++++++) X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Scan-Signature: 0bc60ec82efc80c84b8d02f4b0e4de22 Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate.= You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.trust1ng.net/sign.asp Best Regards, Lisa Smiley to be remov(ed: http://www.trust1ng.net/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From capwap-admin@frascone.com Wed May 11 17:45:08 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA29115 for ; Wed, 11 May 2005 17:45:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A17720373; Wed, 11 May 2005 17:45:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFC4C2034C; Wed, 11 May 2005 17:45:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 939842028A for ; Wed, 11 May 2005 17:44:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mgw-ext02.nokia.com (mgw-ext02.nokia.com [131.228.20.94]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 220B020242 for ; Wed, 11 May 2005 17:44:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from esebh107.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh107.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.143.143]) by mgw-ext02.nokia.com (Switch-3.1.7/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id j4BLi8dM028562 for ; Thu, 12 May 2005 00:44:16 +0300 Received: from daebh102.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.241.35.112]) by esebh107.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 12 May 2005 00:44:11 +0300 Received: from mvebe101.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.19.64.23]) by daebh102.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 11 May 2005 16:44:07 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: <893AE265F4ADF94AB7FB26D31A788E410C1146@mvebe101.NOE.Nokia.com> Thread-Topic: Call for CAPWAP Evaluation draft Editor(s) Thread-Index: AcVWco448PixBp9vQe2qZoYM8t+ZOA== From: To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 May 2005 21:44:07.0261 (UTC) FILETIME=[8ED680D0:01C55672] X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Subject: [Capwap] Call for CAPWAP Evaluation draft Editor(s) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 14:44:06 -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable We are looking for a volunteer(s) to act as editor for the CAPWAP Evaluation draft. Ideally, the Evaluation draft editor(s) should not be an author of the proposed base protocols.=20 The editor will evaluate all four proposed protocols against the Objectives draft, the taxonomy draft and the Problem statement This evaluation along with input from the WG list, will determine which protocol will serve as the base CAPWAP protocol. The milestone for the Evaluation draft is to submit to the IESG by = August, 2005. Please volunteer by Friday, May 20th. Thanks, WG Chairs _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Wed May 11 19:29:06 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA09512 for ; Wed, 11 May 2005 19:29:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CECBA20358; Wed, 11 May 2005 19:29:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67AE620270; Wed, 11 May 2005 19:29:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9055120270 for ; Wed, 11 May 2005 19:28:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mgw-ext04.nokia.com (mgw-ext04.nokia.com [131.228.20.96]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 826252023B for ; Wed, 11 May 2005 19:28:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from esebh105.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh105.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.138.211]) by mgw-ext04.nokia.com (Switch-3.1.7/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id j4BNPliG020174 for ; Thu, 12 May 2005 02:25:55 +0300 Received: from daebh101.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.241.35.111]) by esebh105.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 12 May 2005 02:27:58 +0300 Received: from mvebe101.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.19.64.23]) by daebh101.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 11 May 2005 18:27:56 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: <893AE265F4ADF94AB7FB26D31A788E410C114C@mvebe101.NOE.Nokia.com> Thread-Topic: CAPWAP poll results and next steps Thread-Index: AcVUdWld+IofLLWkSiGYzgcSJUm9sQCCzqJQ From: To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 May 2005 23:27:56.0691 (UTC) FILETIME=[0FDE1630:01C55681] X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP poll results and next steps Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 16:27:55 -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi WG, Sorry for the delay in this email. I thought I sent this out last week = on Friday, but I just noticed the address was misspelled! Thanks for your patience and participation in the poll. Regards, Dorothy > -----Original Message----- > From: Gellert Dorothy (Nokia-ES/MtView) =20 > Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 1:59 AM > To: 'capwap@frrascone.com' > Cc: Bert Wijnen (E-mail); Mani Mahalingam (E-mail); Kessens David = (Nokia-NET/MtView); Gellert Dorothy (Nokia-ES/MtView) > Subject: CAPWAP poll results and next steps >=20 > The CAPWAP poll concluded on May 5th. The results of the "CAPWAP = protocols to evaluate" poll are as follows: >=20 > CTP: YES: 37 NO: 2 > WICOP: YES: 36 NO: 3 > SLAPP: YES: 21 NO: 18 > LWAPP: YES: 38 NO: 1 >=20 > The protocol most in question was SLAPP. Since 21 out 39 people felt = SLAPP should be evaluated, rough consensus dictates that we will = evaluate all 4 protocols. >=20 > The next step is for the champion of each protocol to submit an = individual draft describing how their protocol meets the Objectives = draft, the taxonomy draft and the Problem statement. The first version = of these drafts should be submitted to the WG by Tuesday, May 31st. >=20 > Note the Objectives draft is still subject to change, and these = conformance drafts will have to be updated to reflect the new = objectives. We are requesting these individual evaluations before = finalizing the Objectives so the WG can begin commenting towards the = protocol evaluation as soon as possible. >=20 > Thanks to everyone who participated in the poll. =20 >=20 > Regards, > WG Chairs >=20 >=20 _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Thu May 12 09:57:10 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA24947 for ; Thu, 12 May 2005 09:57:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 693FD20426; Thu, 12 May 2005 09:57:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86960203E0; Thu, 12 May 2005 09:57:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE638203E0 for ; Thu, 12 May 2005 09:56:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from psmtp.com (exprod8og6.obsmtp.com [64.18.3.207]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 8DF7A20369 for ; Thu, 12 May 2005 09:56:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from source ([66.10.55.3]) by exprod8ob6.obsmtp.com ([64.18.7.12]) with SMTP; Thu, 12 May 2005 06:56:32 PDT Received: from mail1.bluesocket.com ([192.168.168.32]) by mailfe.bluesocket.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 12 May 2005 09:53:14 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7232.53 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [Capwap] Call for CAPWAP Evaluation draft Editor(s) Message-ID: <0240FDD68D6C1F4289F73D134A2536A11802E2@mail1.bluesocket.com> Thread-Topic: [Capwap] Call for CAPWAP Evaluation draft Editor(s) Thread-Index: AcVWco448PixBp9vQe2qZoYM8t+ZOAAhsCJQ From: "Dick Eckard" To: , Cc: "Dave Juitt" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 May 2005 13:53:14.0267 (UTC) FILETIME=[F1277EB0:01C556F9] X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 09:53:13 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable WG Chairs, I'll offer to edit/co-edit the Evaluation draft. We are very interested in developing a working protocol that meets the needs of as many providers, equipment and service, as possible. Dick Eckard Chief RF Scientist Bluesocket, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: capwap-admin@frascone.com [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] On Behalf Of Dorothy.Gellert@nokia.com Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 5:44 PM To: capwap@frascone.com Subject: [Capwap] Call for CAPWAP Evaluation draft Editor(s) We are looking for a volunteer(s) to act as editor for the CAPWAP Evaluation draft. Ideally, the Evaluation draft editor(s) should not be an author of the proposed base protocols.=20 The editor will evaluate all four proposed protocols against the Objectives draft, the taxonomy draft and the Problem statement This evaluation along with input from the WG list, will determine which protocol will serve as the base CAPWAP protocol. The milestone for the Evaluation draft is to submit to the IESG by August, 2005. Please volunteer by Friday, May 20th. Thanks, WG Chairs _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From glacier@didamail.com Thu May 12 11:22:40 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA02848; Thu, 12 May 2005 11:22:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [221.219.112.214] (helo=132.151.6.1) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DWFm5-0004P6-7j; Thu, 12 May 2005 11:38:59 -0400 Authentication-Results: chrysler.es from=premium.jetliner.es; domainkeys=neutral (no sig) X-Originating-IP: [137.9.0.4] Received: from premium.patrolman.es (EHLO premium.boise.es) by premium.icelandic.es with SMTP; Thu, 12 May 2005 20:18:42 +0400 Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 19:12:42 +0300 From: "Trevor Atwood" To: bofchairs@ietf.org Cc: bounces-ietf@ietf.org, bpana@ietf.org, brenton.daniels@ietf.org, bridge-mib@ietf.org, bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org, business@ietf.org, calsch@ietf.org, cancer@ietf.org, capwap-archive@ietf.org, ccips@ietf.org, cclark@ietf.org, cdi-archive@ietf.org, cdir-admin@ietf.org Subject: High rates? Not with us! low fixed rate Message-ID: <118141.2491.glacier@didamail.com> X-Mailer: Kana Connect 6 X-Spam-Score: 3.6 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3 Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.ch00s3.com/sign.asp Best Regards, Mandy Tripp to be remov(ed: http://www.ch00s3.com/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From capwap-admin@frascone.com Thu May 12 12:42:07 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA10099 for ; Thu, 12 May 2005 12:42:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F88D20439; Thu, 12 May 2005 12:42:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFB5D20430; Thu, 12 May 2005 12:42:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1619220430 for ; Thu, 12 May 2005 12:41:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ringding.cs.umd.edu (ringding.cs.umd.edu [128.8.129.2]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40EC420426 for ; Thu, 12 May 2005 12:41:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from wonka.cs.umd.edu (wonka.cs.umd.edu [128.8.128.198]) by ringding.cs.umd.edu (8.12.10/8.12.5) with ESMTP id j4CGEU1q004928; Thu, 12 May 2005 12:14:30 -0400 (EDT) From: "T. Charles Clancy" To: capwap@frascone.com Cc: housley@vigilsec.com Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Subject: [Capwap] LWAPP Security Review Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 12:14:29 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) At the authors' request, I have completed a security review of LWAPP (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt). The review can be found here: http://www.cs.umd.edu/~clancy/docs/lwapp-review.pdf Abstract: This document introduces the LWAPP protocol and provides an analysis of its security features. In particular, the public-key authentication, preshared-key authentication, and packet-level encryption are examined. Also, the security ramications introduced by the IEEE 802.11 binding are reviewed. Lastly, recommendations on changes the the protocol are presented. Overall, LWAPP is "secure". However, given access to the wired network, there are opportunities for denial of service attacks against the public-key authentication algorithm. None of the attacks presented in this document result in the compromise of keying material for active sessions, or the ability to steal service. [ t. charles clancy ]--[ tcc@umd.edu ]--[ www.cs.umd.edu/~clancy ] [ computer science ]-----[ university of maryland | college park ] _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Thu May 12 16:48:09 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA08483 for ; Thu, 12 May 2005 16:48:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0665120458; Thu, 12 May 2005 16:48:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCD3F20450; Thu, 12 May 2005 16:48:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCF2620450 for ; Thu, 12 May 2005 16:47:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sausmaildrop.sciatl.com (192-133-191-95.sciatl.com [192.133.191.95]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC49A20446 for ; Thu, 12 May 2005 16:47:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sausatlmex06.sciatl.com (unverified [172.18.201.136]) by sausmaildrop.sciatl.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.3.10) with ESMTP id for ; Thu, 12 May 2005 16:49:20 -0400 Received: by sausatlmex06.sciatl.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Thu, 12 May 2005 16:47:08 -0400 Message-ID: From: "Agcaoili, Philip" To: "'capwap@frascone.com'" Subject: RE: [Capwap] LWAPP Security Review MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C55733.B04CF09D" X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 16:47:07 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C55733.B04CF09D Content-Type: text/plain Is there a review of what has been done with the implementation that exists in the field that are supposedly based off the base LWAPP draft? Additionally, if the actual implementation in the field is not off the base draft but this one, have they done a review based on the implementation of this version of the spec? Thanks, Philip Agcaoili Chief Security Architect Enterprise Information Protection Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. - - - - - - - Appended by Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. - - - - - - - This e-mail and any attachments may contain information which is confidential, proprietary, privileged or otherwise protected by law. The information is solely intended for the named addressee (or a person responsible for delivering it to the addressee). If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete it from your computer. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C55733.B04CF09D Content-Type: text/html

Is there a review of what has been done with the implementation that exists in the field that are supposedly based off the base LWAPP draft?

 

Additionally, if the actual implementation in the field is not off the base draft but this one, have they done a review based on the implementation of this version of the spec?

 

Thanks,

 

Philip Agcaoili
Chief Security Architect
Enterprise Information Protection
Scientific-Atlanta, Inc.



- - - - - - - Appended by Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. - - - - - - -
This e-mail and any attachments may contain information which is confidential, proprietary, privileged or otherwise protected by law. The information is solely intended for the named addressee (or a person responsible for delivering it to the addressee). If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete it from your computer.
 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C55733.B04CF09D-- _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From grasset@doneasy.com Fri May 13 05:23:39 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA24588; Fri, 13 May 2005 05:23:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from host50.foretec.com ([65.246.255.50] helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DWWeM-0006Hi-IR; Fri, 13 May 2005 05:40:07 -0400 Received: from c-67-171-238-164.hsd1.or.comcast.net ([67.171.238.164]) by mx2.foretec.com with smtp (Exim 4.24) id 1DWVSN-0004Sp-AV; Fri, 13 May 2005 04:23:39 -0400 Authentication-Results: zag.es from=premium.plexiglas.es; domainkeys=neutral (no sig) X-Originating-IP: [40.184.127.7] Received: from premium.kelvin.es (EHLO premium.chi.es) by premium.ainu.es with SMTP; Fri, 13 May 2005 12:26:47 +0200 Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 16:26:47 +0600 From: "Ingrid Watts" To: calsch@ietf.org Cc: cancer@ietf.org, capwap-archive@ietf.org, ccips@ietf.org, cclark@ietf.org, cdi-archive@ietf.org, cdir-admin@ietf.org, cfrg@ietf.org, cfrg-admin@ietf.org, cfrg-archive@ietf.org, cfrg-bounces@ietf.org, cfrg-web-archive@ietf.org Subject: Become one of the low rates Message-ID: <112241.3870.grasset@doneasy.com> X-Mailer: Kana Connect 6 X-Spam-Score: 1.2 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate.= You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.ch00s3.com/sign.asp Best Regards, Solomon Richmond to be remov(ed: http://www.ch00s3.com/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From capwap-admin@frascone.com Fri May 13 07:32:09 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA05721 for ; Fri, 13 May 2005 07:32:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C72020488; Fri, 13 May 2005 07:32:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D7732047A; Fri, 13 May 2005 07:32:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03E992047A for ; Fri, 13 May 2005 07:31:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mhub.AXP.MDX.AC.UK (mhub.axp.mdx.ac.uk [158.94.254.14]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3147C20429 for ; Fri, 13 May 2005 07:31:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Cheng Subject: RE: [Capwap] LWAPP Security Review To: capwap@frascone.com Message-id: <45272C367897174E94DEE1D40C5F0CA7977736@MDX-CLX-DC1.uni.mdx.ac.uk> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6603.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Thread-Topic: [Capwap] LWAPP Security Review Thread-Index: AcVXEfDJr/jw/t4mRtCU+hALyzvSMQAnHoFA content-class: urn:content-classes:message X-INTERNAL-IP: 10.13.82.21 X-Comment: Middlesex University has scanned this message for viruses. X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 12:31:09 +0100 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT We had a review on the early version of LWAPP in 2004 which can be found via http://www.cs.mdx.ac.uk/staffpages/m_cheng/link/lwapp_g.pdf. Abstract. Light Weight Access Point Protocol (LWAPP) is a new protocol being designed to make communications between access points and wireless switches automatic. This protocol allows a router or switch to interop- erably control and manage a collection of wireless access points, so as to move some of the loading due to Wi-Fi processes and function com- plexity to the centralized wireless switches or routers. In this report we analyze the security design of the protocol, address some possible attacks and present some fix solutions. Moreover the proposed key- transport protocols have their own interest and can be used in other scenarios. -- We did not follow the development of LWAPP. But from Charles' work, we found the public-key based scheme has not siginificant change in the new version. As Charles pointed out, the scheme is vulnerable to DoS attack. Michael Cheng -----Original Message----- From: capwap-admin@frascone.com [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] On Behalf Of T. Charles Clancy Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 5:14 PM To: capwap@frascone.com Cc: housley@vigilsec.com Subject: [Capwap] LWAPP Security Review At the authors' request, I have completed a security review of LWAPP (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt). The review can be found here: http://www.cs.umd.edu/~clancy/docs/lwapp-review.pdf Abstract: This document introduces the LWAPP protocol and provides an analysis of its security features. In particular, the public-key authentication, preshared-key authentication, and packet-level encryption are examined. Also, the security ramications introduced by the IEEE 802.11 binding are reviewed. Lastly, recommendations on changes the the protocol are presented. Overall, LWAPP is "secure". However, given access to the wired network, there are opportunities for denial of service attacks against the public-key authentication algorithm. None of the attacks presented in this document result in the compromise of keying material for active sessions, or the ability to steal service. [ t. charles clancy ]--[ tcc@umd.edu ]--[ www.cs.umd.edu/~clancy ] [ computer science ]-----[ university of maryland | college park ] _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Fri May 13 09:04:10 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA12123 for ; Fri, 13 May 2005 09:04:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0289C2048E; Fri, 13 May 2005 09:04:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A94220483; Fri, 13 May 2005 09:04:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CC4020483 for ; Fri, 13 May 2005 09:03:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com (sj-iport-4.cisco.com [171.68.10.86]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 199292047A for ; Fri, 13 May 2005 09:03:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com (171.68.223.137) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 May 2005 06:03:22 -0700 Received: from pacalhouwxp (dhcp-171-71-133-38.cisco.com [171.71.133.38]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j4DD3KrA019248 for ; Fri, 13 May 2005 06:03:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200505131303.j4DD3KrA019248@sj-core-3.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun" To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_092A_01C55781.77564F70" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Thread-Index: AcVXvCA3I7bC8FWbR0CeBmnafHW0cw== X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Subject: [Capwap] Response to LWAPP Security Review Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 06:03:15 -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_092A_01C55781.77564F70 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The co-authors of the LWAPP draft believe that security is of the utmost importance for the working group, and therefore asked Charles to perform a review of the draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt specification. I would like to personally thank Charles for his detailed analysis of the LWAPP protocol, as well as the associated review document. I believe that his review further strengthens the fact that the LWAPP protocol meets the security objectives the co-authors had laid out for ourselves. Charles mentioned that the PSK mode is cryptographically secure. On the other hand, while the certificate based approach is practically secure, Charles had some recommendations to also make it cryptographically secure. I would like to respond to these recommended changes. 1. Add an additional round to perform explicit key validation. LWAPP introduced an additional round in the join phase in the -02 draft, but it is currently only used for the pre-shared key approach. We will modify the certificate approach within the protocol to make use of this new round to perform explicit key validation. 2. Increase size of SID to 128 bits to prevent replay attacks. The Session Identifier is actually used in two ways. First, it is used to uniquely identify a session during the key exchange. Second, the data tunneling component of LWAPP uses the session id in its headers. Unfortunately, increasing the session id size to 128 bits will unnecessarily increase the overhead associated with the tunneling header. Therefore, after careful consideration, we believe that the best approach is to in fact increase the session id size during the key exchange, but clearly state within the specification that only the least significant 32 bits are used in the LWAPP data tunnel header. 3. Require AC certificates to contain an extended usage authorizing them to provide AC services. The authors have considered including a proposed X.509 certificate profile in the specification for some time, but opted to leave it out until a future version. However, Charles' comment makes it clear that including it within the LWAPP specification is required in order to address this concern. In the X.509 certificates we use today, we require that both the AP and the AC include their LWAPP mode of operation (e.g., AC, WTP) to order to bind the certificate to a role. Charles also had the suggested change for encryption purposes: 4. Secure derivation of the initialization vector, at least by the AC, but preferably by both the AC and WTP Today, the WTP implicitely choses the IV through the Session Identifier. We will make a change to allow the AC to select the most significant 64 bits of the IV during the join phase. Chales also mentioned the following suggestions to mitigate future attacks: 5. Perform key derivation based on exchanged entropy, rather than having the AC push a key to the WTP This is the mode of operation used for pre-shared key, and we will extend this mechanism to the certificate based approach. Finally, Charles recommends adding the following text: 6. Normatively RECOMMEND that LWAPP not be used with 802.11 WEP There is nothing about LWAPP that causes WEP to be more vulnerable, but Charles is recommending that a statement be included stating that WEP not be supported on LWAPP ACs/WTPs. This is a note for implementers with the understanding that there are many legacy devices in the field that only support WEP and cannot be upgraded. Therefore, it may not be practical for vendors to stop supporting WEP. 7. Add text stating that handoffs must be authenticated, for example by requiring a successful 802.11 rekey before moving a session from one WTP to another. Again, this is an implementation issue, and the LWAPP document does not include sufficient text in the delete mobile on when this to be issued during a handoff. While the authors know how to implement this in a secure fashion, Charles is right that a third party may not consider the implications of sending the delete mobile prior to an authenticated handoff, and therefore some additional text is warranted. Once more, thanks to Charles for the great review. I have a question for the chairs. Given that we initiated this review, I would like to know if it would be possible to address these issues and repost an updated version of the draft for consideration. I believe that it is in the best interest of the Working Group, and the Internet Community, to be working off a protocol that has had a security review. Pat Calhoun CTO, Wireless Networking Business Unit Cisco Systems ------=_NextPart_000_092A_01C55781.77564F70 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The = co-authors of=20 the LWAPP draft believe that security is of the utmost importance for = the=20 working group, and therefore asked Charles to perform a review of the=20 draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-02.txt specification. I would like = to personally=20 thank Charles for his detailed analysis of the LWAPP protocol, as well = as the=20 associated review document. I believe that = his review=20 further strengthens the fact that the LWAPP protocol meets the security=20 objectives the co-authors had laid out for = ourselves.
 
Charles mentioned=20 that the PSK mode is cryptographically secure. On the other hand, while = the=20 certificate based approach is practically secure, Charles had some=20 recommendations to also make it cryptographically secure. I would like = to=20 respond to these recommended changes.
 
1. Add = an additional=20 round to perform explicit key validation.
LWAPP introduced=20 an additional round in the join phase in the -02 draft, but it is = currently=20 only used for the pre-shared key approach. We will modify the = certificate=20 approach within the protocol to make use of this new round to perform = explicit=20 key validation.
2. = Increase size of=20 SID to 128 bits to prevent replay attacks.
The = Session=20 Identifier is actually used in two ways. First, it is used to uniquely = identify a session during the key exchange. Second, the data tunneling = component of LWAPP uses the session id in its headers. Unfortunately,=20 increasing the session id size to 128 bits will unnecessarily increase = the=20 overhead associated with the tunneling header. Therefore, after = careful=20 consideration, we believe that the best approach is to in fact = increase the=20 session id size during the key exchange, but clearly state within the=20 specification that only the least significant 32 bits are used in the = LWAPP=20 data tunnel header.
3. = Require AC=20 certificates to contain an extended usage authorizing them to provide AC = services.
The = authors have=20 considered including a proposed X.509 certificate profile in the = specification=20 for some time, but opted to leave it out until a future version. = However,=20 Charles' comment makes it clear that including it within the LWAPP=20 specification is required in order to address this concern. In the = X.509=20 certificates we use today, we require that both the AP and the AC = include=20 their LWAPP mode of operation (e.g., AC, WTP) to order to bind the = certificate=20 to a role.
Charles also had the=20 suggested change for encryption purposes:
4. = Secure derivation=20 of the initialization vector, at least by the AC, but preferably by both = the AC=20 and WTP
Today, the WTP=20 implicitely choses the IV through the Session Identifier. We will make = a=20 change to allow the AC to select the most significant 64 bits of the = IV during=20 the join phase.
Chales = also=20 mentioned the following suggestions to mitigate future=20 attacks:
5. = Perform key=20 derivation based on exchanged entropy, rather than having the AC push a = key to=20 the WTP
This = is the mode=20 of operation used for pre-shared key, and we will extend this = mechanism to the=20 certificate based approach.
Finally, Charles=20 recommends adding the following text:
6. = Normatively=20 RECOMMEND that LWAPP not be used with 802.11 WEP
There is nothing=20 about LWAPP that causes WEP to be more vulnerable, but Charles is = recommending=20 that a statement be included stating that WEP not be supported on = LWAPP=20 ACs/WTPs. This is a note for implementers with the understanding that = there=20 are many legacy devices in the field that only support WEP and cannot = be=20 upgraded. Therefore, it may not be practical for vendors to stop = supporting=20 WEP.
7. Add = text stating=20 that handoffs must be authenticated, for example by requiring a = successful=20 802.11 rekey before moving a session from one WTP to=20 another.
Again, this is an=20 implementation issue, and the LWAPP document does not include = sufficient text=20 in the delete mobile on when this to be issued during a handoff. While = the=20 authors know how to implement this in a secure fashion, Charles is = right that=20 a third party may not consider the implications of sending the delete = mobile=20 prior to an authenticated handoff, and therefore some additional text = is=20 warranted.
 
Once more,=20 thanks to Charles for the great review.
 
I have a question for the chairs. Given that = we=20 initiated this review, I would like to know if it would be possible to = address=20 these issues and repost an updated version of the draft for = consideration. I=20 believe that it is in the best interest of the Working Group, and the = Internet=20 Community, to be working off a protocol that has had a security=20 review.

Pat Calhoun
CTO, Wireless Networking = Business=20 Unit
Cisco Systems

 
------=_NextPart_000_092A_01C55781.77564F70-- _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From mavrina@emailaccount.com Fri May 13 15:10:22 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA16084; Fri, 13 May 2005 15:10:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from host50.foretec.com ([65.246.255.50] helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DWfoE-0004LI-6g; Fri, 13 May 2005 15:26:54 -0400 Received: from 24-53-185-58.pittpa.adelphia.net ([24.53.185.58]) by mx2.foretec.com with smtp (Exim 4.24) id 1DWfY4-0000Xe-FL; Fri, 13 May 2005 15:10:16 -0400 X-Apparently-To: cancer@ietf.org X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 Received: from beside.anhydrite.pochta.ru ([unix socket]) by summitry.filtrate.pochta.ru (Cyrus v2.2.9) with LMTPA; Fri, 13 May 2005 15:04:56 -0500 Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 13:00:56 -0700 From: "Erika Slaughter" Message-Id: X-Accept-Language: en,zh-TW,zh-CN,zh,ja,ko,tr,ru To: cancer@ietf.org Cc: capwap-archive@ietf.org, ccips@ietf.org, cclark@ietf.org, cdi-archive@ietf.org, cdir-admin@ietf.org, cfrg@ietf.org, cfrg-admin@ietf.org, cfrg-archive@ietf.org, cfrg-bounces@ietf.org, cfrg-web-archive@ietf.org, chair@ietf.org, chiname.cn@ietf.org, chive@ietf.org, christine.fontenot@ietf.org Subject: You've been selected for a low rate X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564 X-Spam-Score: 3.5 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.ch00s3.com/sign.asp Best Regards, Colleen Ricks to be remov(ed: http://www.ch00s3.com/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From capwap-admin@frascone.com Fri May 13 16:50:10 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA08642 for ; Fri, 13 May 2005 16:50:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39C21204C9; Fri, 13 May 2005 16:50:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D660204BB; Fri, 13 May 2005 16:50:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42F90204BF for ; Fri, 13 May 2005 16:49:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cba0smtp01.CBA0.centerbeam.com (smtp4.centerbeam.com [63.120.115.248]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F17E204BB for ; Fri, 13 May 2005 16:49:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cba0e2k00.CBA0.centerbeam.com ([64.95.101.25]) by cba0smtp01.CBA0.centerbeam.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Fri, 13 May 2005 13:59:40 -0700 Received: from CBA0E2K06.CBA0.centerbeam.com ([64.95.101.40]) by cba0e2k00.CBA0.centerbeam.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Fri, 13 May 2005 13:48:58 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [Capwap] Call for CAPWAP Evaluation draft Editor(s) Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] Call for CAPWAP Evaluation draft Editor(s) Thread-Index: AcVWco448PixBp9vQe2qZoYM8t+ZOAAhsCJQAA3iXiA= From: "Darren Loher" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 May 2005 20:48:58.0211 (UTC) FILETIME=[2F510B30:01C557FD] X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 13:48:58 -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable WG Chairs,=20 I would also like to offer to co-edit/co-author the CAPWAP Evaluation draft. I have 11 years of network operations and management experience from the enterprise and service provider backgrounds, have helped write some NMS and config management systems in the past. =20 -- Darren Loher Senior Architect Roving Planet =20 http://www.rovingplanet.com +1.303.996.7578 > -----Original Message----- > From: capwap-admin@frascone.com [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] On > Behalf Of Dorothy.Gellert@nokia.com > Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 5:44 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] Call for CAPWAP Evaluation draft Editor(s) >=20 >=20 > We are looking for a volunteer(s) to act as editor for the CAPWAP > Evaluation draft. Ideally, the Evaluation draft editor(s) should not > be an author of the proposed base protocols. >=20 > The editor will evaluate all four proposed protocols against the > Objectives draft, the taxonomy draft and the Problem statement This > evaluation along with input from the WG list, will determine which > protocol will serve as the base CAPWAP protocol. >=20 > The milestone for the Evaluation draft is to submit to the IESG by > August, 2005. >=20 > Please volunteer by Friday, May 20th. >=20 > Thanks, > WG Chairs _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Fri May 13 19:35:07 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA22193 for ; Fri, 13 May 2005 19:35:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFA3F2041B; Fri, 13 May 2005 19:35:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B95E1FE14; Fri, 13 May 2005 19:35:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8F102026A for ; Fri, 13 May 2005 19:34:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sausmailstop.sciatl.com (192-133-191-95.sciatl.com [192.133.191.95]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99E801FE14 for ; Fri, 13 May 2005 19:34:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sausatlmex06.sciatl.com (unverified [172.18.201.136]) by sausmailstop.sciatl.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.3.10) with ESMTP id for ; Fri, 13 May 2005 19:38:42 -0400 Received: by sausatlmex06.sciatl.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Fri, 13 May 2005 19:34:15 -0400 Message-ID: From: "Agcaoili, Philip" To: "'capwap@frascone.com'" Subject: Re: [Capwap] Response to LWAPP Security Review MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C55813.189C99CA" X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 19:34:14 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C55813.189C99CA Content-Type: text/plain So to summarize, you appear to be saying that LWAPP security depends from implementation to implementation of the draft. I'd like to be the voice of reason here and ask as a customer that the IETF specification is explicit enough to reasonably ensure that every implementation of the spec is secure. Thanks, Philip Agcaoili Chief Security Architect Enterprise Information Protection Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. - - - - - - - Appended by Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. - - - - - - - This e-mail and any attachments may contain information which is confidential, proprietary, privileged or otherwise protected by law. The information is solely intended for the named addressee (or a person responsible for delivering it to the addressee). If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete it from your computer. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C55813.189C99CA Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: [Capwap] Response to LWAPP Security Review

So to summarize, you appear to be saying that LWAPP secur= ity depends from implementation to implementation of the draft.

I'd like to be the voice of reason here and ask as a cust= omer that the IETF specification is explicit enough to reasonably ensure th= at every implementation of the spec is secure.

Thanks,

Philip Agcaoili
Chief Security Architect
Enterprise Information Protection
Scientific-Atlanta, Inc.=20



- - - - - - - Appended by Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. - - - - - - - This e-mail and any attachments may contain information which is confidenti= al, proprietary, privileged or otherwise protected by law. The information = is solely intended for the named addressee (or a person responsible for del= ivering it to the addressee). If you are not the intended recipient of this= message, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminat= e this message or any part of it. If you have received this e-mail in error= , please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete it from = your computer.
 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C55813.189C99CA-- _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Fri May 13 22:28:07 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA03383 for ; Fri, 13 May 2005 22:28:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEFCD204C1; Fri, 13 May 2005 22:28:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CC37204B9; Fri, 13 May 2005 22:28:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56863204B9 for ; Fri, 13 May 2005 22:27:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from carrierpigeon.cs.umd.edu (carrierpigeon.cs.umd.edu [128.8.129.58]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 648D4204AA for ; Fri, 13 May 2005 22:27:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ismene (ismene.cs.umd.edu [128.8.126.62]) by carrierpigeon.cs.umd.edu (8.12.10/8.12.5) with ESMTP id j4E2AgtS010905; Fri, 13 May 2005 22:10:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Charles Clancy X-X-Sender: clancy@ismene To: "Agcaoili, Philip" Cc: "'capwap@frascone.com'" Subject: Re: [Capwap] Response to LWAPP Security Review In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 22:07:01 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) In the current draft, there is some ambiguity on how 802.11 roaming should be implemented with respect to the 11i TSK. The draft defines all the messages to be passed back and forth, but not how these affect the policy and state on the WTP and AC as they interact with 802.11i. The most direct way to implement the protocol could yield a system vunerable to denial of service attacks. As the Pat stated, they plan to address this problem by adding text clarifying this process. [ t. charles clancy ]--[ tcc@umd.edu ]--[ www.cs.umd.edu/~clancy ] [ computer science ]-----[ university of maryland | college park ] On Fri, 13 May 2005, Agcaoili, Philip wrote: > So to summarize, you appear to be saying that LWAPP security depends from > implementation to implementation of the draft. > > I'd like to be the voice of reason here and ask as a customer that the IETF > specification is explicit enough to reasonably ensure that every > implementation of the spec is secure. > > Thanks, > > Philip Agcaoili > Chief Security Architect > Enterprise Information Protection > Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. > > > - - - - - - - Appended by Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. - - - - - - - > This e-mail and any attachments may contain information which is confidential, proprietary, privileged or otherwise protected by law. The information is solely intended for the named addressee (or a person responsible for delivering it to the addressee). If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete it from your computer. > > _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Sat May 14 00:13:08 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA09304 for ; Sat, 14 May 2005 00:13:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A28F204C9; Sat, 14 May 2005 00:13:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2FEB204C3; Sat, 14 May 2005 00:13:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B41E204C3 for ; Sat, 14 May 2005 00:12:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62594204C1 for ; Sat, 14 May 2005 00:12:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com (171.68.223.137) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 May 2005 21:12:10 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: i="3.93,108,1115017200"; d="scan'208,217"; a="265095562:sNHT39931790" Received: from pacalhouwxp (sjc-vpn6-463.cisco.com [10.21.121.207]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j4E4C7rA021786; Fri, 13 May 2005 21:12:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200505140412.j4E4C7rA021786@sj-core-3.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun" To: "'Agcaoili, Philip'" , Subject: RE: [Capwap] Response to LWAPP Security Review MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0AB2_01C55800.6C3CB7D0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Thread-Index: AcVYFLwzemXTkZOITr2AwNoN9rK4rAAJdyeA In-Reply-To: X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 21:12:07 -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0AB2_01C55800.6C3CB7D0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Actually, I agree, and the issues raised in the review state that the specification needs to have clarifying text to ensure that other implementations do things right. As I mentioned below, we will be adding such text to ensure that the document is very clear, minimizing the possibility of 3rd party implementors being vulnerable to the issues mentioned. Your voice is heard. Pat Calhoun CTO, Wireless Networking Business Unit Cisco Systems _____ From: capwap-admin@frascone.com [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] On Behalf Of Agcaoili, Philip Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 4:34 PM To: 'capwap@frascone.com' Subject: Re: [Capwap] Response to LWAPP Security Review So to summarize, you appear to be saying that LWAPP security depends from implementation to implementation of the draft. I'd like to be the voice of reason here and ask as a customer that the IETF specification is explicit enough to reasonably ensure that every implementation of the spec is secure. Thanks, Philip Agcaoili Chief Security Architect Enterprise Information Protection Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. - - - - - - - Appended by Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. - - - - - - - This e-mail and any attachments may contain information which is confidential, proprietary, privileged or otherwise protected by law. The information is solely intended for the named addressee (or a person responsible for delivering it to the addressee). If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete it from your computer. ------=_NextPart_000_0AB2_01C55800.6C3CB7D0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: [Capwap] Response to LWAPP Security = Review
Actually, I agree, and the issues raised in the = review=20 state that the specification needs to have clarifying text to ensure = that other=20 implementations do things right. As I mentioned below, we will be adding = such=20 text to ensure that the document is very clear, minimizing the = possibility of=20 3rd party implementors being vulnerable to the issues=20 mentioned.
 
Your voice is heard.

Pat Calhoun
CTO, Wireless Networking = Business=20 Unit
Cisco Systems

 

From: capwap-admin@frascone.com=20 [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] On Behalf Of Agcaoili,=20 Philip
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 4:34 PM
To:=20 'capwap@frascone.com'
Subject: Re: [Capwap] Response to = LWAPP=20 Security Review

So to summarize, you appear to be saying that LWAPP = security=20 depends from implementation to implementation of the draft.

I'd like to be the voice of reason here and ask as a = customer=20 that the IETF specification is explicit enough to reasonably ensure = that every=20 implementation of the spec is secure.

Thanks,

Philip Agcaoili
Chief = Security=20 Architect
Enterprise Information Protection=20
Scientific-Atlanta, Inc.



- - - - - - - Appended by Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. - = - - - - -=20 -
This e-mail and any attachments may contain information which is = confidential, proprietary, privileged or otherwise protected by law. = The=20 information is solely intended for the named addressee (or a person=20 responsible for delivering it to the addressee). If you are not the = intended=20 recipient of this message, you are not authorized to read, print, = retain, copy=20 or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received = this=20 e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail = and=20 delete it from your computer.
 ------=_NextPart_000_0AB2_01C55800.6C3CB7D0-- _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From orsburn@doneasy.com Sun May 15 14:47:08 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA22811; Sun, 15 May 2005 14:47:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [222.94.78.192] (helo=132.151.6.1) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DXOPD-0002Ck-J4; Sun, 15 May 2005 15:04:06 -0400 Authentication-Results: bronx.es from=premium.commune.es; domainkeys=neutral (no sig) X-Originating-IP: [34.108.252.108] Received: from premium.bereft.es (EHLO premium.astronautic.es) by premium.avocet.es with SMTP; Sun, 15 May 2005 12:39:06 -0700 Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 16:37:06 -0300 From: "Jacquelyn Naquin" To: bounces-ietf@ietf.org Cc: bpana@ietf.org, brenton.daniels@ietf.org, bridge-mib@ietf.org, bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org, business@ietf.org, calsch@ietf.org, cancer@ietf.org, capwap-archive@ietf.org, ccips@ietf.org, cclark@ietf.org, cdi-archive@ietf.org, cdir-admin@ietf.org, cfrg@ietf.org, cfrg-admin@ietf.org Subject: High rates? Not with us! low fixed rate Message-ID: <113941.3962.orsburn@doneasy.com> X-Mailer: Kana Connect 6 X-Spam-Score: 6.2 (++++++) X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Scan-Signature: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3 Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.truthfu1ly.com/sign.asp Best Regards, Marlene Beach to be remov(ed: http://www.truthfu1ly.com/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From capwap-admin@frascone.com Sun May 15 15:51:08 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA02347 for ; Sun, 15 May 2005 15:51:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6C9F203A3; Sun, 15 May 2005 15:51:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBA5F2027D; Sun, 15 May 2005 15:51:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E5982027D for ; Sun, 15 May 2005 15:50:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A2CD1FE14 for ; Sun, 15 May 2005 15:50:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (171.71.177.237) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 15 May 2005 12:50:27 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: i="3.93,110,1115017200"; d="scan'208"; a="265548058:sNHT28991636" Received: from pacalhouwxp (sjc-vpn1-718.cisco.com [10.21.98.206]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j4FJn8EZ019767; Sun, 15 May 2005 12:50:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200505151950.j4FJn8EZ019767@sj-core-1.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun" To: Cc: Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP poll results and next steps MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 Thread-Index: AcVUdWld+IofLLWkSiGYzgcSJUm9sQCCzqJQAJq45GA= In-Reply-To: <893AE265F4ADF94AB7FB26D31A788E410C114C@mvebe101.NOE.Nokia.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 12:50:22 -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dorothy, I think it is important to make sure that we have a consistent approach at documenting protocol conformance. The lack of such consistency will cause the evaluation phase to be unnecessarily complex. From the e-mail below, you state that a protocol needs to comply with the problem statement, the taxonomy document and the objectives document. I can easily understand how one can specify conformance (or not) against the objectives document, but it is much less clear when it comes to the taxonomy and problem statement draft (which the latter was included in the objectives document). What I would like to propose is that the authors of the documents use every objectives in the document, and for every objective provide some text describing the conformance, and finally a conformance rating in the form of (satisfies objective, partially satisfies objective or does not satify objective). For example: 3.0 Mandatory Objectives 3.1 Interoperability Objective The CAPWAP protocol must include sufficient capabilities negotiations to distinguish between major types of WTPs. 3.1.1 Protocol Evaluation The xxx protocol defines a mechanism whereby the WTP... 3.1.2 Compliance The xxx satisfies this CAPWAP objective Lastly, it would be a good idea for the documents to include a compliance summary table, in the following form: Partially Does not Satisfies Satisfies Satisfy Logical Groups X Support for Traffic Separation X Wireless Terminal Transparency X Configuration Consistency X Firmware Trigger X Monitoring and Exchange of System-wide Resource State X Resource Control Objective X CAPWAP Protocol Security X System-wide Security X IEEE 802.11i Considerations X Interoperability Objective X Protocol Specifications X Vendor Independence X Vendor Flexibility X Multiple Authentication Mechanisms X Support for Future Wireless Technologies X Support for New IEEE Requirements X Interconnection Objective X Access Control X Support for Non-CAPWAP WTPs X Technical Specifications X AP Fast Handoff X Thoughts? Pat Calhoun CTO, Wireless Networking Business Unit Cisco Systems > -----Original Message----- > From: capwap-admin@frascone.com > [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] On Behalf Of > Dorothy.Gellert@nokia.com > Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 4:28 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP poll results and next steps > > Hi WG, > > Sorry for the delay in this email. I thought I sent this out > last week on Friday, but I just noticed the address was misspelled! > Thanks for your patience and participation in the poll. > > Regards, > Dorothy > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Gellert Dorothy (Nokia-ES/MtView) > > Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 1:59 AM > > To: 'capwap@frrascone.com' > > Cc: Bert Wijnen (E-mail); Mani Mahalingam (E-mail); Kessens > David (Nokia-NET/MtView); Gellert Dorothy (Nokia-ES/MtView) > > Subject: CAPWAP poll results and next steps > > > > The CAPWAP poll concluded on May 5th. The results of the > "CAPWAP protocols to evaluate" poll are as follows: > > > > CTP: YES: 37 NO: 2 > > WICOP: YES: 36 NO: 3 > > SLAPP: YES: 21 NO: 18 > > LWAPP: YES: 38 NO: 1 > > > > The protocol most in question was SLAPP. Since 21 out 39 > people felt SLAPP should be evaluated, rough consensus > dictates that we will evaluate all 4 protocols. > > > > The next step is for the champion of each protocol to > submit an individual draft describing how their protocol > meets the Objectives draft, the taxonomy draft and the > Problem statement. The first version of these drafts should > be submitted to the WG by Tuesday, May 31st. > > > > Note the Objectives draft is still subject to change, and > these conformance drafts will have to be updated to reflect > the new objectives. We are requesting these individual > evaluations before finalizing the Objectives so the WG can > begin commenting towards the protocol evaluation as soon as possible. > > > > Thanks to everyone who participated in the poll. > > > > Regards, > > WG Chairs > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Capwap mailing list > Capwap@frascone.com > http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Sun May 15 16:14:08 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA04792 for ; Sun, 15 May 2005 16:14:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83B0A20442; Sun, 15 May 2005 16:14:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC06B203A0; Sun, 15 May 2005 16:14:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9C42203A0 for ; Sun, 15 May 2005 16:13:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sausmailstop.sciatl.com (192-133-191-95.sciatl.com [192.133.191.95]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDB2C1FE14 for ; Sun, 15 May 2005 16:13:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sausatlmex05.sciatl.com (unverified [172.18.201.135]) by sausmailstop.sciatl.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.3.10) with ESMTP id ; Sun, 15 May 2005 16:18:03 -0400 Received: by sausatlmex05.sciatl.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Sun, 15 May 2005 16:13:30 -0400 Message-ID: From: "Agcaoili, Philip" To: "'Pat Calhoun '" , "Agcaoili, Philip" , "'capwap@frascone.com '" Subject: RE: [Capwap] Response to LWAPP Security Review MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) X-Received-From-Address: 171.71.176.72 X-Envelope-To: 171.71.176.72 X-Envelope-From: 171.71.176.72 Content-Class: 171.71.176.72 Priority: 171.71.176.72 X-Mailer: 171.71.176.72 X-MimeOLE: 171.71.176.72 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 171.71.176.72 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C55988.6A4EC09C" X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 16:13:29 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C55988.6A4EC09C Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" This is great to hear. It also seems like we're adding complexity to this working group by reinventing the wheel. Why bother fixing something that's been solved many times already? This working group should reusing other standards-based, well understood, and battle-proven methods such as IKE with IPSec or TLS with certificates? Thanks, Philip Agcaoili Chief Security Architect Enterprise Information Protection Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: Pat Calhoun To: 'Agcaoili, Philip'; capwap@frascone.com Sent: 5/14/2005 12:12 AM Subject: RE: [Capwap] Response to LWAPP Security Review Actually, I agree, and the issues raised in the review state that the specification needs to have clarifying text to ensure that other implementations do things right. As I mentioned below, we will be adding such text to ensure that the document is very clear, minimizing the possibility of 3rd party implementors being vulnerable to the issues mentioned. Your voice is heard. Pat Calhoun CTO, Wireless Networking Business Unit Cisco Systems _____ From: capwap-admin@frascone.com [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] On Behalf Of Agcaoili, Philip Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 4:34 PM To: 'capwap@frascone.com' Subject: Re: [Capwap] Response to LWAPP Security Review So to summarize, you appear to be saying that LWAPP security depends from implementation to implementation of the draft. I'd like to be the voice of reason here and ask as a customer that the IETF specification is explicit enough to reasonably ensure that every implementation of the spec is secure. Thanks, Philip Agcaoili Chief Security Architect Enterprise Information Protection Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. - - - - - - - Appended by Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. - - - - - - - This e-mail and any attachments may contain information which is confidential, proprietary, privileged or otherwise protected by law. The information is solely intended for the named addressee (or a person responsible for delivering it to the addressee). If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete it from your computer. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C55988.6A4EC09C Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: [Capwap] Response to LWAPP Security Review

This is great to hear.

It also seems like we're adding complexity to this = working group by reinventing the wheel. Why bother fixing something = that's been solved many times already? This working group should = reusing other standards-based, well understood, and battle-proven = methods such as IKE with IPSec or TLS with certificates?  =

Thanks,

Philip Agcaoili
Chief Security Architect
Enterprise Information Protection
Scientific-Atlanta, Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: Pat Calhoun
To: 'Agcaoili, Philip'; capwap@frascone.com
Sent: 5/14/2005 12:12 AM
Subject: RE: [Capwap] Response to LWAPP Security = Review

Actually, I agree, and the issues raised in the = review state that the
specification needs to have clarifying text to = ensure that other
implementations do things right. As I mentioned = below, we will be adding
such text to ensure that the document is very clear, = minimizing the
possibility of 3rd party implementors being = vulnerable to the issues
mentioned.
 
Your voice is heard.

Pat Calhoun
CTO, Wireless Networking Business Unit
Cisco Systems

 


  _____ 

From: capwap-admin@frascone.com [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.c= om] On
Behalf Of Agcaoili, Philip
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 4:34 PM
To: 'capwap@frascone.com'
Subject: Re: [Capwap] Response to LWAPP Security = Review



So to summarize, you appear to be saying that LWAPP = security depends
from implementation to implementation of the = draft.

I'd like to be the voice of reason here and ask as a = customer that the
IETF specification is explicit enough to reasonably = ensure that every
implementation of the spec is secure.

Thanks,

Philip Agcaoili
Chief Security Architect
Enterprise Information Protection
Scientific-Atlanta, Inc.



- - - - - - - Appended by Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. - = - - - - - -
This e-mail and any attachments may contain = information which is
confidential, proprietary, privileged or otherwise = protected by law. The
information is solely intended for the named = addressee (or a person
responsible for delivering it to the addressee). If = you are not the
intended recipient of this message, you are not = authorized to read,
print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or = any part of it. If
you have received this e-mail in error, please = notify the sender
immediately by return e-mail and delete it from your = computer.


------_=_NextPart_001_01C55988.6A4EC09C-- _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Mon May 16 08:44:10 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA06078 for ; Mon, 16 May 2005 08:44:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB6812051B; Mon, 16 May 2005 08:44:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D736220511; Mon, 16 May 2005 08:44:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E35B420511 for ; Mon, 16 May 2005 08:43:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from carrierpigeon.cs.umd.edu (carrierpigeon.cs.umd.edu [128.8.129.58]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF28A202AB for ; Mon, 16 May 2005 08:43:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ismene (ismene.cs.umd.edu [128.8.126.62]) by carrierpigeon.cs.umd.edu (8.12.10/8.12.5) with ESMTP id j4GCYOtS000733; Mon, 16 May 2005 08:34:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Charles Clancy X-X-Sender: clancy@ismene To: "Agcaoili, Philip" Cc: capwap@frascone.com Subject: RE: [Capwap] Response to LWAPP Security Review In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 08:30:41 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) One problem with many of the standards-based authentication protocols is that they often strive for flexibility rather than simplicity, making them suboptimal for smaller devices, such as a thin AP. Of course, that's not to say they should all be disqualified. IMHO, something like TLS authentication (similar to RFC 2716) would be good, with an application profile limiting the ciphersuites to the following: * TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA * TLS_PSK_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA This would allow for both PSK and public-key authentication, using standard protocols. [ t. charles clancy ]--[ tcc@umd.edu ]--[ www.cs.umd.edu/~clancy ] [ computer science ]-----[ university of maryland | college park ] On Sun, 15 May 2005, Agcaoili, Philip wrote: > This is great to hear. > > It also seems like we're adding complexity to this working group by > reinventing the wheel. Why bother fixing something that's been solved many > times already? This working group should reusing other standards-based, well > understood, and battle-proven methods such as IKE with IPSec or TLS with > certificates? > > Thanks, > > Philip Agcaoili > Chief Security Architect > Enterprise Information Protection > Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun > To: 'Agcaoili, Philip'; capwap@frascone.com > Sent: 5/14/2005 12:12 AM > Subject: RE: [Capwap] Response to LWAPP Security Review > > Actually, I agree, and the issues raised in the review state that the > specification needs to have clarifying text to ensure that other > implementations do things right. As I mentioned below, we will be adding > such text to ensure that the document is very clear, minimizing the > possibility of 3rd party implementors being vulnerable to the issues > mentioned. > > Your voice is heard. > > Pat Calhoun > CTO, Wireless Networking Business Unit > Cisco Systems > > > > > _____ > > From: capwap-admin@frascone.com [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] On > Behalf Of Agcaoili, Philip > Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 4:34 PM > To: 'capwap@frascone.com' > Subject: Re: [Capwap] Response to LWAPP Security Review > > > > So to summarize, you appear to be saying that LWAPP security depends > from implementation to implementation of the draft. > > I'd like to be the voice of reason here and ask as a customer that the > IETF specification is explicit enough to reasonably ensure that every > implementation of the spec is secure. > > Thanks, > > Philip Agcaoili > Chief Security Architect > Enterprise Information Protection > Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. > > > > - - - - - - - Appended by Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. - - - - - - - > This e-mail and any attachments may contain information which is > confidential, proprietary, privileged or otherwise protected by law. The > information is solely intended for the named addressee (or a person > responsible for delivering it to the addressee). If you are not the > intended recipient of this message, you are not authorized to read, > print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If > you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender > immediately by return e-mail and delete it from your computer. > > > _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Mon May 16 10:51:08 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA21585 for ; Mon, 16 May 2005 10:51:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E464220526; Mon, 16 May 2005 10:51:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B8E720353; Mon, 16 May 2005 10:51:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20B0620353 for ; Mon, 16 May 2005 10:50:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from carrierpigeon.cs.umd.edu (carrierpigeon.cs.umd.edu [128.8.129.58]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A0092034B for ; Mon, 16 May 2005 10:50:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ismene (ismene.cs.umd.edu [128.8.126.62]) by carrierpigeon.cs.umd.edu (8.12.10/8.12.5) with ESMTP id j4GEoktS001737 for ; Mon, 16 May 2005 10:50:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Charles Clancy X-X-Sender: clancy@ismene To: capwap@frascone.com Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Subject: [Capwap] security in objectives draft Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 10:47:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) The chairs have asked me to put together some text for the objectives draft that more generally addresses the security issues from the recent LWAPP security review. Before proceeding, I'd like to get some feedback from the working group on the high-level ideas. I think some of them may be overly specific or restrictive. 1. CAPWAP Protocol Security (section 5.1.8) 1a. Strengthen the mutual authentication requirement to require explicit mutual authentication that verifies proper key derivation (many would claim this is the definition of mutual authentication, but ambiguity is never good). 1b. I'm curious about the following statement: "While mutual authentication is necessary for CAPWAP, the protocol should not prevent the use of asymmetric, non-mutual authentication." Can anyone tell me what "asymmetric" and "non-mutual" have to do with each other? I agree that asymmetric methods should be supported, but not non-mutual methods. 1c. Add requirements to key derivation such that session keys and IVs must be mutually derived. 1d. Require that certificates in public-key authentication schemes are both authenticated AND authorized. 2. System-wide Security (section 5.1.9) 2a. This section addresses PMK sharing, but this only seems applicable to a local MAC scenario. When split MAC is being used, PTK sharing is the bigger concern. IMHO, the following should be required: in a split-MAC environment, an 802.11 4-way handshake should be required; in a local-MAC setup, an EAP reauthentication (possibly a fast reauthentication, TLS resume, etc) should be required. Is this too specific and inflexible for protocol designers and implementers? At a minimum, we should add PTK sharing to the threat list, and require handoffs to be authenticated in some way. 2b. I think use of WEP should be disallowed, but I understand that vendors often have to support legacy devices. Should we suggest that drafts have disclaimers normatively recommending that WEP not be used? Thanks! [ t. charles clancy ]--[ tcc@umd.edu ]--[ www.cs.umd.edu/~clancy ] [ computer science ]-----[ university of maryland | college park ] _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Mon May 16 12:10:21 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA02227 for ; Mon, 16 May 2005 12:10:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 488B920540; Mon, 16 May 2005 12:10:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EA6420534; Mon, 16 May 2005 12:10:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 399702052D for ; Mon, 16 May 2005 12:09:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from fridge.docomolabs-usa.com (key1.docomolabs-usa.com [216.98.102.225]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 339A720374 for ; Mon, 16 May 2005 12:09:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <00d901c55a31$c32d4b30$016115ac@dcml.docomolabsusa.com> From: "James Kempf" To: "Charles Clancy" , References: Subject: Re: [Capwap] security in objectives draft MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 09:10:17 -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Charles, Comments. > 1. CAPWAP Protocol Security (section 5.1.8) > > 1a. Strengthen the mutual authentication requirement to require explicit > mutual authentication that verifies proper key derivation (many would > claim this is the definition of mutual authentication, but ambiguity is > never good). > Yes. > 1b. I'm curious about the following statement: "While mutual > authentication is necessary for CAPWAP, the protocol should not prevent > the use of asymmetric, non-mutual authentication." Can anyone tell me > what "asymmetric" and "non-mutual" have to do with each other? I agree > that asymmetric methods should be supported, but not non-mutual methods. > Asymmetric w.r.t. cryptographic protocols (i.e. public key) is fine. Non-mutual is not. I believe mutual authentication should be required. > 1c. Add requirements to key derivation such that session keys and IVs must > be mutually derived. > Yes. > 1d. Require that certificates in public-key authentication schemes are > both authenticated AND authorized. > This would require a certificate profile with attributes added to the identity certificate for authorization, right? This might be too restrictive. We originally required this (MUST) in SEND but had to back off because of deployment considerations. So now it's a SHOULD. An alternative might be attribute certificates, but that also has a deployment concern. > 2. System-wide Security (section 5.1.9) > > 2a. This section addresses PMK sharing, but this only seems applicable to > a local MAC scenario. When split MAC is being used, PTK sharing is the > bigger concern. IMHO, the following should be required: in a split-MAC > environment, an 802.11 4-way handshake should be required; in a local-MAC > setup, an EAP reauthentication (possibly a fast reauthentication, TLS > resume, etc) should be required. Is this too specific and inflexible for > protocol designers and implementers? At a minimum, we should add PTK > sharing to the threat list, and require handoffs to be authenticated in > some way. I'm not so sure this is an issue. Following the concept of a "cryptographic boundary", the split mac moves the cryptographic boundary for the keys to the AC, and a handover on the AC doesn't result in the keys being transferred outside. If that is so, why do you feel that reusing the PTK on handover is a problem? The issue here is that any additional signaling on handover is going to cut deeply into VoIP performance. I do agree with your recommendation on local mac, however. > > 2b. I think use of WEP should be disallowed, but I understand that vendors > often have to support legacy devices. Should we suggest that drafts have > disclaimers normatively recommending that WEP not be used? > Perhaps a SHOULD rather than a MUST? jak _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Mon May 16 12:45:10 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA08250 for ; Mon, 16 May 2005 12:45:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E50D420547; Mon, 16 May 2005 12:45:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8ED4020539; Mon, 16 May 2005 12:45:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3B052037B for ; Mon, 16 May 2005 12:44:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cba0smtp01.CBA0.centerbeam.com (smtp4.centerbeam.com [63.120.115.248]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 096682036C for ; Mon, 16 May 2005 12:44:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CBA0E2K01.CBA0.centerbeam.com ([64.95.101.24]) by cba0smtp01.CBA0.centerbeam.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Mon, 16 May 2005 09:54:51 -0700 Received: from CBA0E2K06.CBA0.centerbeam.com ([64.95.101.40]) by CBA0E2K01.CBA0.centerbeam.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Mon, 16 May 2005 09:44:14 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [Capwap] Response to LWAPP Security Review Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] Response to LWAPP Security Review Thread-Index: AcVaFPn8qJ0qR8urRE+fidjZU0HBfQAHaDJQ From: "Darren Loher" To: "Charles Clancy" , "Agcaoili, Philip" Cc: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 May 2005 16:44:14.0756 (UTC) FILETIME=[7E88DE40:01C55A36] X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 09:44:06 -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Agreed, we should leverage an existing protocol for authentication. TLS with a limited, minimum set (1 or 2?) of required ciphers sounds like a good idea. Additional ciphers should be optional. Given the emergence of WPA and 802.11i, it seems to make sense to leverage one/some of these methods for the WTP <-> AC authentication. =20 I also support that authentication be a requirement (MUST) of both the WTP and AC. Asymmetric ciphers should be allowed.=20 -- Darren Loher Senior Architect Roving Planet =20 http://www.rovingplanet.com +1.303.996.7578 > -----Original Message----- > From: capwap-admin@frascone.com [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] On > Behalf Of Charles Clancy > Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 6:31 AM > To: Agcaoili, Philip > Cc: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: RE: [Capwap] Response to LWAPP Security Review >=20 > One problem with many of the standards-based authentication protocols is > that they often strive for flexibility rather than simplicity, making them > suboptimal for smaller devices, such as a thin AP. Of course, that's not > to say they should all be disqualified. IMHO, something like TLS > authentication (similar to RFC 2716) would be good, with an application > profile limiting the ciphersuites to the following: >=20 > * TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA > * TLS_PSK_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA >=20 > This would allow for both PSK and public-key authentication, using > standard protocols. >=20 > [ t. charles clancy ]--[ tcc@umd.edu ]--[ www.cs.umd.edu/~clancy ] > [ computer science ]-----[ university of maryland | college park ] >=20 >=20 > On Sun, 15 May 2005, Agcaoili, Philip wrote: >=20 > > This is great to hear. > > > > It also seems like we're adding complexity to this working group by > > reinventing the wheel. Why bother fixing something that's been solved > many > > times already? This working group should reusing other standards-based, > well > > understood, and battle-proven methods such as IKE with IPSec or TLS with > > certificates? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Philip Agcaoili > > Chief Security Architect > > Enterprise Information Protection > > Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Pat Calhoun > > To: 'Agcaoili, Philip'; capwap@frascone.com > > Sent: 5/14/2005 12:12 AM > > Subject: RE: [Capwap] Response to LWAPP Security Review > > > > Actually, I agree, and the issues raised in the review state that the > > specification needs to have clarifying text to ensure that other > > implementations do things right. As I mentioned below, we will be adding > > such text to ensure that the document is very clear, minimizing the > > possibility of 3rd party implementors being vulnerable to the issues > > mentioned. > > > > Your voice is heard. > > > > Pat Calhoun > > CTO, Wireless Networking Business Unit > > Cisco Systems > > > > > > > > > > _____ > > > > From: capwap-admin@frascone.com [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] On > > Behalf Of Agcaoili, Philip > > Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 4:34 PM > > To: 'capwap@frascone.com' > > Subject: Re: [Capwap] Response to LWAPP Security Review > > > > > > > > So to summarize, you appear to be saying that LWAPP security depends > > from implementation to implementation of the draft. > > > > I'd like to be the voice of reason here and ask as a customer that the > > IETF specification is explicit enough to reasonably ensure that every > > implementation of the spec is secure. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Philip Agcaoili > > Chief Security Architect > > Enterprise Information Protection > > Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. > > > > > > > > - - - - - - - Appended by Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. - - - - - - - > > This e-mail and any attachments may contain information which is > > confidential, proprietary, privileged or otherwise protected by law. The > > information is solely intended for the named addressee (or a person > > responsible for delivering it to the addressee). If you are not the > > intended recipient of this message, you are not authorized to read, > > print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If > > you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender > > immediately by return e-mail and delete it from your computer. > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Capwap mailing list > Capwap@frascone.com > http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Mon May 16 13:11:07 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA12053 for ; Mon, 16 May 2005 13:11:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB1982054D; Mon, 16 May 2005 13:11:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6179E20539; Mon, 16 May 2005 13:11:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69B7920540 for ; Mon, 16 May 2005 13:10:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from carrierpigeon.cs.umd.edu (carrierpigeon.cs.umd.edu [128.8.129.58]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EB512038C for ; Mon, 16 May 2005 13:09:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ismene (ismene.cs.umd.edu [128.8.126.62]) by carrierpigeon.cs.umd.edu (8.12.10/8.12.5) with ESMTP id j4GH9stS003727; Mon, 16 May 2005 13:09:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Charles Clancy X-X-Sender: clancy@ismene To: James Kempf Cc: capwap@frascone.com Subject: Re: [Capwap] security in objectives draft In-Reply-To: <00d901c55a31$c32d4b30$016115ac@dcml.docomolabsusa.com> Message-ID: References: <00d901c55a31$c32d4b30$016115ac@dcml.docomolabsusa.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 13:06:11 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) >> 1d. Require that certificates in public-key authentication schemes are >> both authenticated AND authorized. > > This would require a certificate profile with attributes added to the > identity certificate for authorization, right? This might be too > restrictive. We originally required this (MUST) in SEND but had to back > off because of deployment considerations. So now it's a SHOULD. > > An alternative might be attribute certificates, but that also has a > deployment concern. You could also define a new KeyPurposeID much like RFC 3770 did for EAP. While it would still leave options for attack (for example, a compromised AC cert from one network being used on another that uses the same CA), IMHO that would be the simplest and least restrictive. >> 2a. This section addresses PMK sharing, but this only seems applicable to >> a local MAC scenario. When split MAC is being used, PTK sharing is the >> bigger concern. IMHO, the following should be required: in a split-MAC >> environment, an 802.11 4-way handshake should be required; in a local-MAC >> setup, an EAP reauthentication (possibly a fast reauthentication, TLS >> resume, etc) should be required. Is this too specific and inflexible for >> protocol designers and implementers? At a minimum, we should add PTK >> sharing to the threat list, and require handoffs to be authenticated in >> some way. > > I'm not so sure this is an issue. Following the concept of a "cryptographic > boundary", the split mac moves the cryptographic boundary for the keys to > the AC, and a handover on the AC doesn't result in the keys being > transferred outside. If that is so, why do you feel that reusing the PTK on > handover is a problem? The issue here is that any additional signaling on > handover is going to cut deeply into VoIP performance. In the split-MAC model where the PTK is pushed to WTPs through which a STA roams, if one WTP is compromised then it can essentially request the PTK for any authenticated client in the network. Using that the rogue WTP can decrypt all the STA's wireless traffic, among other things. If the PTK is renegotiated on handoff, then the affects of a rogue WTP are contained, as it doesn't know the PMK. As I see it, the only way to do this rekey without making changes to the STA is to do another 4-way handshake. >> 2b. I think use of WEP should be disallowed, but I understand that >> vendors often have to support legacy devices. Should we suggest that >> drafts have disclaimers normatively recommending that WEP not be used? > > Perhaps a SHOULD rather than a MUST? Drafts MUST say SHOULD, or SHOULD say SHOULD? [ t. charles clancy ]--[ tcc@umd.edu ]--[ www.cs.umd.edu/~clancy ] [ computer science ]-----[ university of maryland | college park ] _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Mon May 16 14:06:08 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA18404 for ; Mon, 16 May 2005 14:06:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C85462055D; Mon, 16 May 2005 14:06:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19EB520558; Mon, 16 May 2005 14:06:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EDB320558 for ; Mon, 16 May 2005 14:05:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from fridge.docomolabs-usa.com (key1.docomolabs-usa.com [216.98.102.225]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A82B920552 for ; Mon, 16 May 2005 14:05:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <017901c55a42$0a973430$016115ac@dcml.docomolabsusa.com> From: "James Kempf" To: "Charles Clancy" Cc: References: <00d901c55a31$c32d4b30$016115ac@dcml.docomolabsusa.com> Subject: Re: [Capwap] security in objectives draft MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 11:06:46 -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > You could also define a new KeyPurposeID much like RFC 3770 did for EAP. > While it would still leave options for attack (for example, a compromised > AC cert from one network being used on another that uses the same CA), > IMHO that would be the simplest and least restrictive. > This looks promising. Any idea how widely KeyPurposeID is deployed? > >> 2a. This section addresses PMK sharing, but this only seems applicable to > >> a local MAC scenario. When split MAC is being used, PTK sharing is the > >> bigger concern. IMHO, the following should be required: in a split-MAC > >> environment, an 802.11 4-way handshake should be required; in a local-MAC > >> setup, an EAP reauthentication (possibly a fast reauthentication, TLS > >> resume, etc) should be required. Is this too specific and inflexible for > >> protocol designers and implementers? At a minimum, we should add PTK > >> sharing to the threat list, and require handoffs to be authenticated in > >> some way. > > > > I'm not so sure this is an issue. Following the concept of a "cryptographic > > boundary", the split mac moves the cryptographic boundary for the keys to > > the AC, and a handover on the AC doesn't result in the keys being > > transferred outside. If that is so, why do you feel that reusing the PTK on > > handover is a problem? The issue here is that any additional signaling on > > handover is going to cut deeply into VoIP performance. > > In the split-MAC model where the PTK is pushed to WTPs through which a STA > roams, if one WTP is compromised then it can essentially request the PTK > for any authenticated client in the network. Using that the rogue WTP can > decrypt all the STA's wireless traffic, among other things. If the PTK is > renegotiated on handoff, then the affects of a rogue WTP are contained, as > it doesn't know the PMK. As I see it, the only way to do this rekey > without making changes to the STA is to do another 4-way handshake. > OK. Isn't 802.11r working on this problem? > >> 2b. I think use of WEP should be disallowed, but I understand that > >> vendors often have to support legacy devices. Should we suggest that > >> drafts have disclaimers normatively recommending that WEP not be used? > > > > Perhaps a SHOULD rather than a MUST? > > Drafts MUST say SHOULD, or SHOULD say SHOULD? > I think the draft should say SHOULD. jak _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Mon May 16 14:20:08 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA19938 for ; Mon, 16 May 2005 14:20:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D88020561; Mon, 16 May 2005 14:20:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE06B2055E; Mon, 16 May 2005 14:20:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: Lwapp@frascone.com Delivered-To: Lwapp@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3F0C20559 for ; Mon, 16 May 2005 14:19:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from NATCN3.bscexc1.bsci.com (gerry.bsci.com [204.155.16.114]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 756A920552 for ; Mon, 16 May 2005 14:19:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: by natcn3.bsci.bossci.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Mon, 16 May 2005 14:19:40 -0400 Message-ID: <312712AA17715C4BAC5A4C981B03955003A7F8@NATMAIL01.bsci.bossci.com> From: "Acord, Dell" To: "'Lwapp@frascone.com'" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C55A43.B95DFC52" X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Subject: [Capwap] LWAPP RFC Information Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 14:18:56 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C55A43.B95DFC52 Content-Type: text/plain Dear Sir, Let me first introduce myself. My name is Dell Acord. I have been tasked to set up a wireless test lab to evaluate two wireless enterprise vendors product line. To familiarize myself with the LWAPP protocol. I have just read the IETF Draft for the LWAPP and am wondering since the document that I had read was dated for August 2003. If this has been approved for RFC? If so, what would the RFC ID would be? Can you recommend any other documentation for my research? Some of the things I am interested in LWAPP for infrastructure and especially any security issues that are still open. Thank you for your time!!! Dell Acord EDS/BSC (508) 650-8739 w (508) 962-7059 m This message is a PRIVATE communication. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, or use it, and do not disclose it to others. Please notify the sender of the delivery error by replying to this message, and then delete it from your system. Thank you. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C55A43.B95DFC52 Content-Type: text/html
Dear Sir,
 
Let me first introduce myself. My name is Dell Acord. I have been tasked to set up a wireless test lab to evaluate two wireless enterprise vendors product line.
To familiarize myself with the LWAPP protocol.
I have just read the IETF Draft for the LWAPP and am wondering since the document that I had read was dated for August 2003. If this has been approved for RFC? If so, what would the RFC ID would be?
 
Can you recommend any other documentation for my research? Some of the things I am interested in LWAPP for infrastructure and especially any security issues that are still open.
 
Thank you for your time!!!
 
Dell Acord
EDS/BSC
(508) 650-8739 w
(508) 962-7059 m

This message is a PRIVATE communication.
If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy,
or use it, and do not disclose it to others. Please notify the
sender of the delivery error by replying to this message, and then
delete it from your system. Thank you.

 
 
------_=_NextPart_001_01C55A43.B95DFC52-- _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Mon May 16 14:57:08 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23542 for ; Mon, 16 May 2005 14:57:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61D5E20565; Mon, 16 May 2005 14:57:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEF0C20559; Mon, 16 May 2005 14:57:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4735320559 for ; Mon, 16 May 2005 14:56:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from carrierpigeon.cs.umd.edu (carrierpigeon.cs.umd.edu [128.8.129.58]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B726420552 for ; Mon, 16 May 2005 14:56:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ismene (ismene.cs.umd.edu [128.8.126.62]) by carrierpigeon.cs.umd.edu (8.12.10/8.12.5) with ESMTP id j4GItstS006228; Mon, 16 May 2005 14:55:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Charles Clancy X-X-Sender: clancy@ismene To: James Kempf Cc: capwap@frascone.com Subject: Re: [Capwap] security in objectives draft In-Reply-To: <017901c55a42$0a973430$016115ac@dcml.docomolabsusa.com> Message-ID: References: <00d901c55a31$c32d4b30$016115ac@dcml.docomolabsusa.com> <017901c55a42$0a973430$016115ac@dcml.docomolabsusa.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 14:52:11 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) >> You could also define a new KeyPurposeID much like RFC 3770 did for >> EAP. While it would still leave options for attack (for example, a >> compromised AC cert from one network being used on another that uses >> the same CA), IMHO that would be the simplest and least restrictive. > > This looks promising. Any idea how widely KeyPurposeID is deployed? KeyPurposeID is the data type for elements of the X509v3 extended key usage. I suspect you'd see it in almost all certificates these days. OpenSSL has support for the simple ones (i.e. "TLS Web Server Authentication", etc). I have no idea what fraction of applications actually pay attention to them, though. >> In the split-MAC model where the PTK is pushed to WTPs through which a >> STA roams, if one WTP is compromised then it can essentially request >> the PTK for any authenticated client in the network. Using that the >> rogue WTP can decrypt all the STA's wireless traffic, among other >> things. If the PTK is renegotiated on handoff, then the affects of a >> rogue WTP are contained, as it doesn't know the PMK. As I see it, the >> only way to do this rekey without making changes to the STA is to do >> another 4-way handshake. > > OK. Isn't 802.11r working on this problem? I'm not familiar with all the TGr proposals, but from what I understand they all still rely on the 4-way handshake to turn the PMK into a PTK. They look at ways to handle the discovery and preemptive PMK keying so a full EAP reauthentication doesn't have to happen. Since the split-MAC model inherently handles the handoff process (unless of course you're roaming between ACs), I think the TGr work would only apply to the local-MAC model. [ t. charles clancy ]--[ tcc@umd.edu ]--[ www.cs.umd.edu/~clancy ] [ computer science ]-----[ university of maryland | college park ] _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From diersen@didamail.com Mon May 16 15:22:10 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27785; Mon, 16 May 2005 15:22:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from c-67-160-20-15.hsd1.wa.comcast.net ([67.160.20.15]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DXlQt-0001P4-IK; Mon, 16 May 2005 15:39:21 -0400 Received: from gorge-jcoppens.com (EHLO innumerable.jcoppens.com) by drumhead.jcoppens.com with SMTP; Mon, 16 May 2005 21:15:10 +0100 Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 15:16:10 -0500 From: "Simon Holloway" To: bpana@ietf.org Cc: brenton.daniels@ietf.org, bridge-mib@ietf.org, bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org, business@ietf.org, calsch@ietf.org, cancer@ietf.org, capwap-archive@ietf.org, ccips@ietf.org, cclark@ietf.org, cdi-archive@ietf.org, cdir-admin@ietf.org, cfrg@ietf.org Subject: Your account #10M7169 Message-ID: X-SpamTest-Info: Profile: SysLog X-SpamTest-Status: Not detected X-SpamTest-Version: SMTP-Filter Version 2.0.0 [750], SpamtestISP/Release X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.41 (Entity 5.404) X-Spam-Score: 3.7 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3 Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.truthfu1ly.com/sign.asp Best Regards, Will Walter to be remov(ed: http://www.truthfu1ly.com/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From capwap-admin@frascone.com Mon May 16 19:54:07 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA17668 for ; Mon, 16 May 2005 19:54:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDF1A204B0; Mon, 16 May 2005 19:54:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B021C204A5; Mon, 16 May 2005 19:54:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E0B2204A5 for ; Mon, 16 May 2005 19:53:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cba0smtp01.CBA0.centerbeam.com (smtp4.centerbeam.com [63.120.115.248]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54AC320496 for ; Mon, 16 May 2005 19:53:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cba0e2k00.CBA0.centerbeam.com ([64.95.101.25]) by cba0smtp01.CBA0.centerbeam.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Mon, 16 May 2005 17:03:54 -0700 Received: from CBA0E2K06.CBA0.centerbeam.com ([64.95.101.40]) by cba0e2k00.CBA0.centerbeam.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Mon, 16 May 2005 16:53:18 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP poll results and next steps Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP poll results and next steps Thread-Index: AcVUdWld+IofLLWkSiGYzgcSJUm9sQCCzqJQAJq45GAAT6uTUA== From: "Darren Loher" To: "Pat Calhoun" , Cc: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 May 2005 23:53:18.0918 (UTC) FILETIME=[6F403E60:01C55A72] X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 16:53:08 -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I like Pat's suggestion. Perhaps this content would be best included as part of the protocol evaluation draft? Of course, it wouldn't be bad if the editors of each protocol wrote this into their drafts as well. -- Darren Loher > -----Original Message----- > From: capwap-admin@frascone.com [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] On > Behalf Of Pat Calhoun > Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 1:50 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Cc: Dorothy.Gellert@nokia.com > Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP poll results and next steps >=20 > Dorothy, >=20 > I think it is important to make sure that we have a consistent approach at > documenting protocol conformance. The lack of such consistency will cause > the evaluation phase to be unnecessarily complex. >=20 > From the e-mail below, you state that a protocol needs to comply with the > problem statement, the taxonomy document and the objectives document. I > can > easily understand how one can specify conformance (or not) against the > objectives document, but it is much less clear when it comes to the > taxonomy > and problem statement draft (which the latter was included in the > objectives > document). >=20 > What I would like to propose is that the authors of the documents use > every > objectives in the document, and for every objective provide some text > describing the conformance, and finally a conformance rating in the form > of > (satisfies objective, partially satisfies objective or does not satify > objective). >=20 > For example: >=20 > 3.0 Mandatory Objectives > 3.1 Interoperability Objective > The CAPWAP protocol must include sufficient capabilities > negotiations > to distinguish between major types of WTPs. >=20 > 3.1.1 Protocol Evaluation > The xxx protocol defines a mechanism whereby the WTP... >=20 > 3.1.2 Compliance > The xxx satisfies this CAPWAP objective >=20 > Lastly, it would be a good idea for the documents to include a compliance > summary table, in the following form: >=20 >=20 > Partially Does not > Satisfies Satisfies Satisfy >=20 > Logical Groups X > Support for Traffic Separation X > Wireless Terminal Transparency X > Configuration Consistency X > Firmware Trigger X > Monitoring and Exchange of Dark blue?> System-wide Resource State X > Resource Control Objective X > CAPWAP Protocol Security X > System-wide Security X > IEEE 802.11i Considerations X > Interoperability Objective X > Protocol Specifications X > Vendor Independence X > Vendor Flexibility X > Multiple Authentication Mechanisms X > Support for Future Wireless > Technologies X > Support for New IEEE Requirements X > Interconnection Objective X > Access Control X > Support for Non-CAPWAP WTPs X > Technical Specifications X > AP Fast Handoff X > Thoughts? >=20 > Pat Calhoun > CTO, Wireless Networking Business Unit > Cisco Systems >=20 >=20 >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: capwap-admin@frascone.com > > [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] On Behalf Of > > Dorothy.Gellert@nokia.com > > Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 4:28 PM > > To: capwap@frascone.com > > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP poll results and next steps > > > > Hi WG, > > > > Sorry for the delay in this email. I thought I sent this out > > last week on Friday, but I just noticed the address was misspelled! > > Thanks for your patience and participation in the poll. > > > > Regards, > > Dorothy > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Gellert Dorothy (Nokia-ES/MtView) > > > Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 1:59 AM > > > To: 'capwap@frrascone.com' > > > Cc: Bert Wijnen (E-mail); Mani Mahalingam (E-mail); Kessens > > David (Nokia-NET/MtView); Gellert Dorothy (Nokia-ES/MtView) > > > Subject: CAPWAP poll results and next steps > > > > > > The CAPWAP poll concluded on May 5th. The results of the > > "CAPWAP protocols to evaluate" poll are as follows: > > > > > > CTP: YES: 37 NO: 2 > > > WICOP: YES: 36 NO: 3 > > > SLAPP: YES: 21 NO: 18 > > > LWAPP: YES: 38 NO: 1 > > > > > > The protocol most in question was SLAPP. Since 21 out 39 > > people felt SLAPP should be evaluated, rough consensus > > dictates that we will evaluate all 4 protocols. > > > > > > The next step is for the champion of each protocol to > > submit an individual draft describing how their protocol > > meets the Objectives draft, the taxonomy draft and the > > Problem statement. The first version of these drafts should > > be submitted to the WG by Tuesday, May 31st. > > > > > > Note the Objectives draft is still subject to change, and > > these conformance drafts will have to be updated to reflect > > the new objectives. We are requesting these individual > > evaluations before finalizing the Objectives so the WG can > > begin commenting towards the protocol evaluation as soon as possible. > > > > > > Thanks to everyone who participated in the poll. > > > > > > Regards, > > > WG Chairs > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Capwap mailing list > > Capwap@frascone.com > > http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > _______________________________________________ > Capwap mailing list > Capwap@frascone.com > http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Mon May 16 19:59:08 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA18038 for ; Mon, 16 May 2005 19:59:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD9D1204CE; Mon, 16 May 2005 19:59:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD9A4204AE; Mon, 16 May 2005 19:59:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B107204AE for ; Mon, 16 May 2005 19:58:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mgw-ext02.nokia.com (mgw-ext02.nokia.com [131.228.20.94]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C0B3204A5 for ; Mon, 16 May 2005 19:58:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from esebh106.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh106.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.138.213]) by mgw-ext02.nokia.com (Switch-3.1.7/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id j4GNw9tB013570; Tue, 17 May 2005 02:58:10 +0300 Received: from daebh102.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.241.35.112]) by esebh106.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 17 May 2005 02:58:10 +0300 Received: from mvebe101.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.19.64.23]) by daebh102.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 16 May 2005 18:58:07 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP poll results and next steps Message-ID: <893AE265F4ADF94AB7FB26D31A788E410C1168@mvebe101.NOE.Nokia.com> Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP poll results and next steps Thread-Index: AcVUdWld+IofLLWkSiGYzgcSJUm9sQCCzqJQAJq45GAAYdW98A== From: To: , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 May 2005 23:58:07.0693 (UTC) FILETIME=[1B5FCFD0:01C55A73] X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 16:58:06 -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This suggestion seems reasonable to me. Are there any comments from the = WG and especially the individual protocol draft editors? Regards, Dorothy -----Original Message----- From: capwap-admin@frascone.com [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com]On Behalf Of ext Pat Calhoun Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 12:50 PM To: capwap@frascone.com Cc: Gellert Dorothy (Nokia-ES/MtView) Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP poll results and next steps Dorothy, I think it is important to make sure that we have a consistent approach = at documenting protocol conformance. The lack of such consistency will = cause the evaluation phase to be unnecessarily complex. From the e-mail below, you state that a protocol needs to comply with = the problem statement, the taxonomy document and the objectives document. I = can easily understand how one can specify conformance (or not) against the objectives document, but it is much less clear when it comes to the = taxonomy and problem statement draft (which the latter was included in the = objectives document). What I would like to propose is that the authors of the documents use = every objectives in the document, and for every objective provide some text describing the conformance, and finally a conformance rating in the form = of (satisfies objective, partially satisfies objective or does not satify objective). For example: 3.0 Mandatory Objectives 3.1 Interoperability Objective The CAPWAP protocol must include sufficient capabilities negotiations to distinguish between major types of WTPs. =09 3.1.1 Protocol Evaluation The xxx protocol defines a mechanism whereby the WTP... 3.1.2 Compliance The xxx satisfies this CAPWAP objective Lastly, it would be a good idea for the documents to include a = compliance summary table, in the following form: Partially Does not Satisfies Satisfies Satisfy Logical Groups X Support for Traffic Separation X Wireless Terminal Transparency X Configuration Consistency X Firmware Trigger X Monitoring and Exchange of=20 System-wide Resource State X Resource Control Objective X CAPWAP Protocol Security X System-wide Security X IEEE 802.11i Considerations X Interoperability Objective X Protocol Specifications X Vendor Independence X Vendor Flexibility X Multiple Authentication Mechanisms X Support for Future Wireless Technologies X Support for New IEEE Requirements X Interconnection Objective X Access Control X Support for Non-CAPWAP WTPs X Technical Specifications X AP Fast Handoff X Thoughts? Pat Calhoun CTO, Wireless Networking Business Unit Cisco Systems =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: capwap-admin@frascone.com=20 > [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] On Behalf Of=20 > Dorothy.Gellert@nokia.com > Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 4:28 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP poll results and next steps >=20 > Hi WG, >=20 > Sorry for the delay in this email. I thought I sent this out=20 > last week on Friday, but I just noticed the address was misspelled! > Thanks for your patience and participation in the poll. >=20 > Regards, > Dorothy >=20 >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Gellert Dorothy (Nokia-ES/MtView) =20 > > Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 1:59 AM > > To: 'capwap@frrascone.com' > > Cc: Bert Wijnen (E-mail); Mani Mahalingam (E-mail); Kessens=20 > David (Nokia-NET/MtView); Gellert Dorothy (Nokia-ES/MtView) > > Subject: CAPWAP poll results and next steps > >=20 > > The CAPWAP poll concluded on May 5th. The results of the=20 > "CAPWAP protocols to evaluate" poll are as follows: > >=20 > > CTP: YES: 37 NO: 2 > > WICOP: YES: 36 NO: 3 > > SLAPP: YES: 21 NO: 18 > > LWAPP: YES: 38 NO: 1 > >=20 > > The protocol most in question was SLAPP. Since 21 out 39=20 > people felt SLAPP should be evaluated, rough consensus=20 > dictates that we will evaluate all 4 protocols. > >=20 > > The next step is for the champion of each protocol to=20 > submit an individual draft describing how their protocol=20 > meets the Objectives draft, the taxonomy draft and the=20 > Problem statement. The first version of these drafts should=20 > be submitted to the WG by Tuesday, May 31st. > >=20 > > Note the Objectives draft is still subject to change, and=20 > these conformance drafts will have to be updated to reflect=20 > the new objectives. We are requesting these individual=20 > evaluations before finalizing the Objectives so the WG can=20 > begin commenting towards the protocol evaluation as soon as possible. > >=20 > > Thanks to everyone who participated in the poll. =20 > >=20 > > Regards, > > WG Chairs > >=20 > >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Capwap mailing list > Capwap@frascone.com > http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Mon May 16 20:24:09 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA19575 for ; Mon, 16 May 2005 20:24:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFDB7204FB; Mon, 16 May 2005 20:24:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA2CE204ED; Mon, 16 May 2005 20:24:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABE63204F3 for ; Mon, 16 May 2005 20:23:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from psmtp.com (exprod8og7.obsmtp.com [64.18.3.208]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with SMTP id CC4E1204ED for ; Mon, 16 May 2005 20:23:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from source ([66.10.55.3]) by exprod8ob7.obsmtp.com ([64.18.7.12]) with SMTP; Mon, 16 May 2005 17:22:31 PDT Received: from mail1.bluesocket.com ([192.168.168.32]) by mailfe.bluesocket.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 16 May 2005 20:22:31 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7232.53 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP poll results and next steps MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: <0240FDD68D6C1F4289F73D134A2536A11E401F@mail1.bluesocket.com> Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP poll results and next steps Thread-Index: AcVUdWld+IofLLWkSiGYzgcSJUm9sQCCzqJQAJq45GAAYdW98AAAzfLw From: "Dick Eckard" To: , , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 May 2005 00:22:31.0450 (UTC) FILETIME=[83D767A0:01C55A76] X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 20:21:46 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I agree that this seems a reasonable approach. Perhaps a single column response with S, P or X, instead of Pat's three columns, and then a list of numbered notes explaining any deviations at the bottom. Dick Eckard Chief RF Scientist Bluesocket, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: capwap-admin@frascone.com [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] On Behalf Of Dorothy.Gellert@nokia.com Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 9:58 AM To: pcalhoun@cisco.com; capwap@frascone.com Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP poll results and next steps This suggestion seems reasonable to me. Are there any comments from the WG and especially the individual protocol draft editors? Regards, Dorothy -----Original Message----- From: capwap-admin@frascone.com [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com]On Behalf Of ext Pat Calhoun Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 12:50 PM To: capwap@frascone.com Cc: Gellert Dorothy (Nokia-ES/MtView) Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP poll results and next steps Dorothy, I think it is important to make sure that we have a consistent approach at documenting protocol conformance. The lack of such consistency will cause the evaluation phase to be unnecessarily complex. From the e-mail below, you state that a protocol needs to comply with the problem statement, the taxonomy document and the objectives document. I can easily understand how one can specify conformance (or not) against the objectives document, but it is much less clear when it comes to the taxonomy and problem statement draft (which the latter was included in the objectives document). What I would like to propose is that the authors of the documents use every objectives in the document, and for every objective provide some text describing the conformance, and finally a conformance rating in the form of (satisfies objective, partially satisfies objective or does not satify objective). For example: 3.0 Mandatory Objectives 3.1 Interoperability Objective The CAPWAP protocol must include sufficient capabilities negotiations to distinguish between major types of WTPs. =09 3.1.1 Protocol Evaluation The xxx protocol defines a mechanism whereby the WTP... 3.1.2 Compliance The xxx satisfies this CAPWAP objective Lastly, it would be a good idea for the documents to include a compliance summary table, in the following form: Partially Does not Satisfies Satisfies Satisfy Logical Groups X Support for Traffic Separation X Wireless Terminal Transparency X Configuration Consistency X Firmware Trigger X Monitoring and Exchange of=20 System-wide Resource State X Resource Control Objective X CAPWAP Protocol Security X System-wide Security X IEEE 802.11i Considerations X Interoperability Objective X Protocol Specifications X Vendor Independence X Vendor Flexibility X Multiple Authentication Mechanisms X Support for Future Wireless Technologies X Support for New IEEE Requirements X Interconnection Objective X Access Control X Support for Non-CAPWAP WTPs X Technical Specifications X AP Fast Handoff X Thoughts? Pat Calhoun CTO, Wireless Networking Business Unit Cisco Systems =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: capwap-admin@frascone.com=20 > [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] On Behalf Of=20 > Dorothy.Gellert@nokia.com > Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 4:28 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP poll results and next steps >=20 > Hi WG, >=20 > Sorry for the delay in this email. I thought I sent this out=20 > last week on Friday, but I just noticed the address was misspelled! > Thanks for your patience and participation in the poll. >=20 > Regards, > Dorothy >=20 >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Gellert Dorothy (Nokia-ES/MtView) =20 > > Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 1:59 AM > > To: 'capwap@frrascone.com' > > Cc: Bert Wijnen (E-mail); Mani Mahalingam (E-mail); Kessens=20 > David (Nokia-NET/MtView); Gellert Dorothy (Nokia-ES/MtView) > > Subject: CAPWAP poll results and next steps > >=20 > > The CAPWAP poll concluded on May 5th. The results of the=20 > "CAPWAP protocols to evaluate" poll are as follows: > >=20 > > CTP: YES: 37 NO: 2 > > WICOP: YES: 36 NO: 3 > > SLAPP: YES: 21 NO: 18 > > LWAPP: YES: 38 NO: 1 > >=20 > > The protocol most in question was SLAPP. Since 21 out 39=20 > people felt SLAPP should be evaluated, rough consensus=20 > dictates that we will evaluate all 4 protocols. > >=20 > > The next step is for the champion of each protocol to=20 > submit an individual draft describing how their protocol=20 > meets the Objectives draft, the taxonomy draft and the=20 > Problem statement. The first version of these drafts should=20 > be submitted to the WG by Tuesday, May 31st. > >=20 > > Note the Objectives draft is still subject to change, and=20 > these conformance drafts will have to be updated to reflect=20 > the new objectives. We are requesting these individual=20 > evaluations before finalizing the Objectives so the WG can=20 > begin commenting towards the protocol evaluation as soon as possible. > >=20 > > Thanks to everyone who participated in the poll. =20 > >=20 > > Regards, > > WG Chairs > >=20 > >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Capwap mailing list > Capwap@frascone.com > http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From shiest@didamail.com Tue May 17 00:11:10 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA10926; Tue, 17 May 2005 00:11:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [60.222.252.153] (helo=132.151.6.1) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DXtgv-0001cO-5m; Tue, 17 May 2005 00:28:27 -0400 Received: from dexter-jcoppens.com (EHLO elba.jcoppens.com) by lew.jcoppens.com with SMTP; Tue, 17 May 2005 09:07:40 +0400 Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 00:02:40 -0500 From: "Teresa Darnell" To: brenton.daniels@ietf.org Cc: bridge-mib@ietf.org, bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org, business@ietf.org, calsch@ietf.org, cancer@ietf.org, capwap-archive@ietf.org, ccips@ietf.org, cclark@ietf.org Subject: Pre-approved Application #ZCJRNI883 Message-ID: X-SpamTest-Info: Profile: SysLog X-SpamTest-Status: Not detected X-SpamTest-Version: SMTP-Filter Version 2.0.0 [486], SpamtestISP/Release X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.41 (Entity 5.404) X-Spam-Score: 3.3 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate.= You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.truthfu1ly.com/sign.asp Best Regards, Avis Begay to be remov(ed: http://www.truthfu1ly.com/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From capwap-admin@frascone.com Tue May 17 01:57:18 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA20792 for ; Tue, 17 May 2005 01:57:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC65E2054D; Tue, 17 May 2005 01:57:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A43720521; Tue, 17 May 2005 01:57:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0FC420545 for ; Tue, 17 May 2005 01:56:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from syd-iport-1.cisco.com (syd-iport-1.cisco.com [64.104.193.196]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 412DA2053A for ; Tue, 17 May 2005 01:56:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from syd-core-1.cisco.com (64.104.193.198) by syd-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 May 2005 16:11:19 +1000 Received: from pacalhouwxp (syd-vpn-client-254-40.cisco.com [10.66.254.40]) by syd-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j4H5tHet011594; Tue, 17 May 2005 15:55:25 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <200505170555.j4H5tHet011594@syd-core-1.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun" To: "'Dick Eckard'" , , Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP poll results and next steps MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Thread-Index: AcVUdWld+IofLLWkSiGYzgcSJUm9sQCCzqJQAJq45GAAYdW98AAAzfLwAAurCEA= In-Reply-To: <0240FDD68D6C1F4289F73D134A2536A11E401F@mail1.bluesocket.com> X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 22:55:41 -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I suppose I'm confused as to what the expectation from the WG is on the authors of the proposals. I would expect that even if an 'S' is supplied, sufficient justification is required to be able to make the claim. This is why I had envisioned that there would be a complete section for every requirement, and whether the protocol was in compliance, partially in compliance or not in compliance, there would be specific pointers to help the evaluators make a determination. That said, I like the 'S', 'P' or 'X' in the table - it would increase the readability. Pat Calhoun CTO, Wireless Networking Business Unit Cisco Systems > -----Original Message----- > From: capwap-admin@frascone.com > [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] On Behalf Of Dick Eckard > Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 5:22 PM > To: Dorothy.Gellert@nokia.com; pcalhoun@cisco.com; capwap@frascone.com > Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP poll results and next steps > > I agree that this seems a reasonable approach. Perhaps a > single column response with S, P or X, instead of Pat's three > columns, and then a list of numbered notes explaining any > deviations at the bottom. > > Dick Eckard > Chief RF Scientist > Bluesocket, Inc. > > -----Original Message----- > From: capwap-admin@frascone.com > [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] On Behalf Of > Dorothy.Gellert@nokia.com > Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 9:58 AM > To: pcalhoun@cisco.com; capwap@frascone.com > Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP poll results and next steps > > This suggestion seems reasonable to me. Are there any > comments from the WG and especially the individual protocol > draft editors? > > Regards, > Dorothy > > -----Original Message----- > From: capwap-admin@frascone.com [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com]On > Behalf Of ext Pat Calhoun > Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 12:50 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Cc: Gellert Dorothy (Nokia-ES/MtView) > Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP poll results and next steps > > > Dorothy, > > I think it is important to make sure that we have a > consistent approach at documenting protocol conformance. The > lack of such consistency will cause the evaluation phase to > be unnecessarily complex. > > From the e-mail below, you state that a protocol needs to > comply with the problem statement, the taxonomy document and > the objectives document. I can easily understand how one can > specify conformance (or not) against the objectives document, > but it is much less clear when it comes to the taxonomy and > problem statement draft (which the latter was included in the > objectives document). > > What I would like to propose is that the authors of the > documents use every objectives in the document, and for every > objective provide some text describing the conformance, and > finally a conformance rating in the form of (satisfies > objective, partially satisfies objective or does not satify > objective). > > For example: > > 3.0 Mandatory Objectives > 3.1 Interoperability Objective > The CAPWAP protocol must include sufficient > capabilities negotiations > to distinguish between major types of WTPs. > > 3.1.1 Protocol Evaluation > The xxx protocol defines a mechanism whereby the WTP... > > 3.1.2 Compliance > The xxx satisfies this CAPWAP objective > > Lastly, it would be a good idea for the documents to include > a compliance summary table, in the following form: > > > Partially Does not > Satisfies Satisfies Satisfy > > Logical Groups X > Support for Traffic Separation X > Wireless Terminal Transparency X > Configuration Consistency X > Firmware Trigger X > Monitoring and Exchange of > System-wide Resource State X > Resource Control Objective X > CAPWAP Protocol Security X > System-wide Security X > IEEE 802.11i Considerations X > Interoperability Objective X > Protocol Specifications X > Vendor Independence X > Vendor Flexibility X > Multiple Authentication Mechanisms X > Support for Future Wireless > Technologies X > Support for New IEEE Requirements X > Interconnection Objective X > Access Control X > Support for Non-CAPWAP WTPs X > Technical Specifications X > AP Fast Handoff X > Thoughts? > > Pat Calhoun > CTO, Wireless Networking Business Unit > Cisco Systems > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: capwap-admin@frascone.com > > [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] On Behalf Of > > Dorothy.Gellert@nokia.com > > Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 4:28 PM > > To: capwap@frascone.com > > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP poll results and next steps > > > > Hi WG, > > > > Sorry for the delay in this email. I thought I sent this out last > > week on Friday, but I just noticed the address was misspelled! > > Thanks for your patience and participation in the poll. > > > > Regards, > > Dorothy > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Gellert Dorothy (Nokia-ES/MtView) > > > Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 1:59 AM > > > To: 'capwap@frrascone.com' > > > Cc: Bert Wijnen (E-mail); Mani Mahalingam (E-mail); Kessens > > David (Nokia-NET/MtView); Gellert Dorothy (Nokia-ES/MtView) > > > Subject: CAPWAP poll results and next steps > > > > > > The CAPWAP poll concluded on May 5th. The results of the > > "CAPWAP protocols to evaluate" poll are as follows: > > > > > > CTP: YES: 37 NO: 2 > > > WICOP: YES: 36 NO: 3 > > > SLAPP: YES: 21 NO: 18 > > > LWAPP: YES: 38 NO: 1 > > > > > > The protocol most in question was SLAPP. Since 21 out 39 > > people felt SLAPP should be evaluated, rough consensus > dictates that > > we will evaluate all 4 protocols. > > > > > > The next step is for the champion of each protocol to > > submit an individual draft describing how their protocol meets the > > Objectives draft, the taxonomy draft and the > > Problem statement. The first version of these drafts should > > be submitted to the WG by Tuesday, May 31st. > > > > > > Note the Objectives draft is still subject to change, and > > these conformance drafts will have to be updated to reflect the new > > objectives. We are requesting these individual evaluations before > > finalizing the Objectives so the WG can begin commenting > towards the > > protocol evaluation as soon as possible. > > > > > > Thanks to everyone who participated in the poll. > > > > > > Regards, > > > WG Chairs > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Capwap mailing list > > Capwap@frascone.com > > http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > _______________________________________________ > Capwap mailing list > Capwap@frascone.com > http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > _______________________________________________ > Capwap mailing list > Capwap@frascone.com > http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > _______________________________________________ > Capwap mailing list > Capwap@frascone.com > http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Tue May 17 02:01:08 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA22028 for ; Tue, 17 May 2005 02:01:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE0B920565; Tue, 17 May 2005 02:01:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 347902053A; Tue, 17 May 2005 02:01:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F5BC2053A for ; Tue, 17 May 2005 02:00:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from syd-iport-1.cisco.com (syd-iport-1.cisco.com [64.104.193.196]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5257920524 for ; Tue, 17 May 2005 02:00:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from syd-core-1.cisco.com (64.104.193.198) by syd-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 May 2005 16:15:08 +1000 Received: from pacalhouwxp (syd-vpn-client-254-40.cisco.com [10.66.254.40]) by syd-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j4H5xJet012021; Tue, 17 May 2005 15:59:27 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <200505170559.j4H5xJet012021@syd-core-1.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun" To: "'Darren Loher'" , Cc: Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP poll results and next steps MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Thread-Index: AcVUdWld+IofLLWkSiGYzgcSJUm9sQCCzqJQAJq45GAAT6uTUAAewj/g In-Reply-To: X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 22:59:42 -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Darren, I'm a little confused. While I would be OK with this being done in a protocol evaluation draft, what would you expect to see from the protocol authors? Pat Calhoun CTO, Wireless Networking Business Unit Cisco Systems > -----Original Message----- > From: capwap-admin@frascone.com > [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] On Behalf Of Darren Loher > Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 4:53 PM > To: Pat Calhoun; capwap@frascone.com > Cc: Dorothy.Gellert@nokia.com > Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP poll results and next steps > > I like Pat's suggestion. Perhaps this content would be best > included as part of the protocol evaluation draft? Of > course, it wouldn't be bad if the editors of each protocol > wrote this into their drafts as well. > > -- > Darren Loher > _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Tue May 17 03:31:07 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA17881 for ; Tue, 17 May 2005 03:31:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC42D20575; Tue, 17 May 2005 03:31:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D41E2056D; Tue, 17 May 2005 03:31:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 211CB2056D for ; Tue, 17 May 2005 03:30:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from syd-iport-1.cisco.com (syd-iport-1.cisco.com [64.104.193.196]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4EDF20524 for ; Tue, 17 May 2005 03:30:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from syd-core-1.cisco.com (64.104.193.198) by syd-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 May 2005 17:45:19 +1000 Received: from pacalhouwxp (syd-vpn-client-254-40.cisco.com [10.66.254.40]) by syd-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j4H7TJet023636; Tue, 17 May 2005 17:29:26 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <200505170729.j4H7TJet023636@syd-core-1.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun" To: "'Charles Clancy'" , "'James Kempf'" Cc: , "'Pat Calhoun'" Subject: RE: [Capwap] security in objectives draft MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Thread-Index: AcVaOptMnXvDHxnvToy8FuzUg0JNOAAdzTUQ In-Reply-To: X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 00:29:43 -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > In the split-MAC model where the PTK is pushed to WTPs > through which a STA roams, if one WTP is compromised then it > can essentially request the PTK for any authenticated client > in the network. Using that the rogue WTP can decrypt all the > STA's wireless traffic, among other things. If the PTK is > renegotiated on handoff, then the affects of a rogue WTP are > contained, as it doesn't know the PMK. As I see it, the only > way to do this rekey without making changes to the STA is to > do another 4-way handshake. Actually, I don't believe this is the way CAPWAP protocols work (well, not LWAPP anyhow), and if any of them do, then wouldn't interoperate with any 802.11 station/supplicant that I am aware of. When a client moves, even if it had a cached PMK, it would still have to undergo the full 4-way key handshake, which requires proof of the PMK in order to be successful. Pat Calhoun CTO, Wireless Networking Business Unit Cisco Systems _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Tue May 17 03:48:08 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA19167 for ; Tue, 17 May 2005 03:48:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D137E20582; Tue, 17 May 2005 03:48:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2435C2056E; Tue, 17 May 2005 03:48:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEEAB2057C for ; Tue, 17 May 2005 03:47:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from syd-iport-1.cisco.com (syd-iport-1.cisco.com [64.104.193.196]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24D6F20524 for ; Tue, 17 May 2005 03:47:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from syd-core-1.cisco.com (64.104.193.198) by syd-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 May 2005 18:02:41 +1000 Received: from pacalhouwxp (syd-vpn-client-254-40.cisco.com [10.66.254.40]) by syd-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j4H7klet025975; Tue, 17 May 2005 17:46:55 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <200505170746.j4H7klet025975@syd-core-1.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun" To: "'Charles Clancy'" , "'James Kempf'" Cc: , "'Pat Calhoun'" Subject: RE: [Capwap] security in objectives draft MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Thread-Index: AcVaSSFv2YafQZQuRMmzQ/c+IbBgEAAaUF0g In-Reply-To: X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 00:47:11 -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I'm not familiar with all the TGr proposals, but from what I > understand they all still rely on the 4-way handshake to turn > the PMK into a PTK. > They look at ways to handle the discovery and preemptive PMK > keying so a full EAP reauthentication doesn't have to happen. > Since the split-MAC model inherently handles the handoff > process (unless of course you're roaming between ACs), I > think the TGr work would only apply to the local-MAC model. TGr is actually valid for any architecture. The goal is to minimize the latency associated with a handoff, by optimizing some of the rekeying process, as well as having some form of a guarantee that the target AP has the QoS resources to handle the station. Whether a product uses an autonomous or centralized approach, the station can/will not know, and therefore must treat all APs the same. However, I do agree that implementing TGr is simpler for centralized approaches. Pat Calhoun CTO, Wireless Networking Business Unit Cisco Systems _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Tue May 17 08:12:09 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA14904 for ; Tue, 17 May 2005 08:12:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38F5B205BD; Tue, 17 May 2005 08:12:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44313205B6; Tue, 17 May 2005 08:12:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43AC1205B6 for ; Tue, 17 May 2005 08:11:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ringding.cs.umd.edu (ringding.cs.umd.edu [128.8.129.2]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D3B7205B4 for ; Tue, 17 May 2005 08:11:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from wonka.cs.umd.edu (wonka.cs.umd.edu [128.8.128.198]) by ringding.cs.umd.edu (8.12.10/8.12.5) with ESMTP id j4HBu81q017280; Tue, 17 May 2005 07:56:08 -0400 (EDT) From: "T. Charles Clancy" To: Pat Calhoun Cc: capwap@frascone.com Subject: RE: [Capwap] security in objectives draft In-Reply-To: <200505170729.j4H7TJet023636@syd-core-1.cisco.com> Message-ID: References: <200505170729.j4H7TJet023636@syd-core-1.cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 07:56:08 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) On Tue, 17 May 2005, Pat Calhoun wrote: >> In the split-MAC model where the PTK is pushed to WTPs >> through which a STA roams, if one WTP is compromised then it >> can essentially request the PTK for any authenticated client >> in the network. Using that the rogue WTP can decrypt all the >> STA's wireless traffic, among other things. If the PTK is >> renegotiated on handoff, then the affects of a rogue WTP are >> contained, as it doesn't know the PMK. As I see it, the only >> way to do this rekey without making changes to the STA is to >> do another 4-way handshake. > > Actually, I don't believe this is the way CAPWAP protocols work (well, > not LWAPP anyhow), and if any of them do, then wouldn't interoperate > with any 802.11 station/supplicant that I am aware of. When a client > moves, even if it had a cached PMK, it would still have to undergo > the full 4-way key handshake, which requires proof of the PMK in > order to be successful. You're right -- 11i requires a 4-way handshake after association, so the PTK thing isn't an issue. However, I'd wager that there's a supplicant out there that would do it. For one, most accept pushed keys using the EAPOL RC4 key descriptor for use with dynamically-keyed WEP. They may only update their keys upon termination of an EAPOL keying exchange. I'm not sure what the 802.11/802.1X standards have to say about it, but I wonder what would happen if an reassociate request was not followed by an EAP-Request/Identity but rather an EAP-Success. [ t. charles clancy ]--[ tcc@umd.edu ]--[ www.cs.umd.edu/~clancy ] [ computer science ]-----[ university of maryland | college park ] _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Tue May 17 08:53:08 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA18702 for ; Tue, 17 May 2005 08:53:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C05F205C9; Tue, 17 May 2005 08:53:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEDE7205C5; Tue, 17 May 2005 08:53:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44D8C205C5 for ; Tue, 17 May 2005 08:52:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from vms044pub.verizon.net (vms044pub.verizon.net [206.46.252.44]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0A3E205C1 for ; Tue, 17 May 2005 08:52:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Matt-Holdrege.verizon.net ([208.179.69.254]) by vms044.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2 HotFix 0.04 (built Dec 24 2004)) with ESMTPA id <0IGM005QTX2DQCK3@vms044.mailsrvcs.net> for capwap@frascone.com; Tue, 17 May 2005 07:51:57 -0500 (CDT) From: Matt Holdrege Subject: Re: [Capwap] security in objectives draft In-reply-to: X-Sender: res06gzk@incoming.verizon.net To: Charles Clancy , capwap@frascone.com Message-id: <6.1.2.0.2.20050517022613.02fe4260@incoming.verizon.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.1.2.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed References: X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 02:31:58 -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) At 07:47 AM 5/16/2005, Charles Clancy wrote: >2b. I think use of WEP should be disallowed, but I understand that vendors >often have to support legacy devices. Should we suggest that drafts have >disclaimers normatively recommending that WEP not be used? With all due respect to the installed base of WEP-only gear, the IETF should absolutely not make any exception in this or any other similar case. The legacy installed base has nothing to do with future IETF protocols, especially when it weakens security. Just because the CAPWAP protocol may be used by these legacy AP's, doesn't mean that they have to be forklift upgraded. What it means is that they will not fully comply with the security portion of the specification. Anyone doing a security audit of such a network would reject any WEP-only gear in any case. Think if we had rejected IPsec because the massive installed base of Windows 3.1 intel-386 PC's couldn't comply with it. -Matt _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Tue May 17 10:58:08 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA03444 for ; Tue, 17 May 2005 10:58:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 973D6205D9; Tue, 17 May 2005 10:58:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39AF5205D4; Tue, 17 May 2005 10:58:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11852205D4 for ; Tue, 17 May 2005 10:57:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ringding.cs.umd.edu (ringding.cs.umd.edu [128.8.129.2]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B76D205CF for ; Tue, 17 May 2005 10:56:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from wonka.cs.umd.edu (wonka.cs.umd.edu [128.8.128.198]) by ringding.cs.umd.edu (8.12.10/8.12.5) with ESMTP id j4HElv1q020593; Tue, 17 May 2005 10:47:57 -0400 (EDT) From: "T. Charles Clancy" To: Pat Calhoun Cc: capwap@frascone.com Subject: RE: [Capwap] security in objectives draft In-Reply-To: <200505170746.j4H7klet025975@syd-core-1.cisco.com> Message-ID: References: <200505170746.j4H7klet025975@syd-core-1.cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 10:47:57 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) On Tue, 17 May 2005, Pat Calhoun wrote: >> I'm not familiar with all the TGr proposals, but from what I >> understand they all still rely on the 4-way handshake to turn >> the PMK into a PTK. >> They look at ways to handle the discovery and preemptive PMK >> keying so a full EAP reauthentication doesn't have to happen. >> Since the split-MAC model inherently handles the handoff >> process (unless of course you're roaming between ACs), I >> think the TGr work would only apply to the local-MAC model. > > TGr is actually valid for any architecture. The goal is to > minimize the latency associated with a handoff, by optimizing > some of the rekeying process, as well as having some form of a > guarantee that the target AP has the QoS resources to handle the > station. > > Whether a product uses an autonomous or centralized approach, the > station can/will not know, and therefore must treat all APs > the same. However, I do agree that implementing TGr is simpler for > centralized approaches. Oh, sorry, I was only refering to the keying optimizations. There are plenty of non-keying approaches to speed up handoffs. I'm skeptical that the keying approaches will help the split-MAC environment, unless they are aware of CAPWAP-like deployments, where a PMK is logically shared between multiple BSSes. [ t. charles clancy ]--[ tcc@umd.edu ]--[ www.cs.umd.edu/~clancy ] [ computer science ]-----[ university of maryland | college park ] _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From kirkendall@didamail.com Tue May 17 16:14:50 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA12017; Tue, 17 May 2005 16:14:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from host50.foretec.com ([65.246.255.50] helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DY8jd-0006yC-9v; Tue, 17 May 2005 16:32:13 -0400 Received: from adsl-68-127-36-243.dsl.irvnca.pacbell.net ([68.127.36.243]) by mx2.foretec.com with smtp (Exim 4.24) id 1DY8Sb-0005Kf-1a; Tue, 17 May 2005 16:14:39 -0400 Delivered-To: bernoulli@snout.dreamhost.com Received: from barfly.dreamhost.com by cop.dreamhost.com (Pingofix) with ESMTP id 7CC3A18D6B for ; Wed, 18 May 2005 03:11:29 +0600 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 23:12:29 +0200 From: "Charlotte Jennings" To: Subject: Need a low mortage rate? X-Mailer: Mailman v2.0.8 X-SpamTest-Info: Profile: Formal (167/041130) X-SpamTest-Info: Profile: Detect Hard No RBL (4/030504) X-Spam-Score: 13.8 (+++++++++++++) X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Scan-Signature: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3 Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.truthfu1ly.com/sign.asp Best Regards, Brenton Bautista to be remov(ed: http://www.truthfu1ly.com/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From capwap-admin@frascone.com Tue May 17 16:27:07 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA15099 for ; Tue, 17 May 2005 16:27:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A666220604; Tue, 17 May 2005 16:27:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5795205FE; Tue, 17 May 2005 16:27:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3125205FE for ; Tue, 17 May 2005 16:26:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com (sj-iport-4.cisco.com [171.68.10.86]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 017A7205FC for ; Tue, 17 May 2005 16:26:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (171.71.177.237) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 May 2005 13:26:32 -0700 Received: from pacalhouwxp (syd-vpn-client-254-56.cisco.com [10.66.254.56]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j4HKQPER005315; Tue, 17 May 2005 13:26:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200505172026.j4HKQPER005315@sj-core-1.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun" To: "'Matt Holdrege'" , "'Charles Clancy'" , Subject: RE: [Capwap] security in objectives draft MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Thread-Index: AcVa350c4btHoLOnQN+b5qpKv82H5wAPeRAw In-Reply-To: <6.1.2.0.2.20050517022613.02fe4260@incoming.verizon.net> X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 13:26:25 -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > With all due respect to the installed base of WEP-only gear, > the IETF should absolutely not make any exception in this or > any other similar case. > The legacy installed base has nothing to do with future IETF > protocols, especially when it weakens security. Just because > the CAPWAP protocol may be used by these legacy AP's, doesn't > mean that they have to be forklift upgraded. What it means is > that they will not fully comply with the security portion of > the specification. Anyone doing a security audit of such a > network would reject any WEP-only gear in any case. > > Think if we had rejected IPsec because the massive installed > base of Windows 3.1 intel-386 PC's couldn't comply with it. Matt, while I understand your concerns here, I don't agree that the IETF is in a position to tell AP vendors what security schemes they can and cannot support. In fact, as of today, not supporting WTP would mean that the vendor would lose their ability for WiFi certification. Pat Calhoun CTO, Wireless Networking Business Unit Cisco Systems _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Tue May 17 18:09:20 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA25575 for ; Tue, 17 May 2005 18:09:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19B4F2026C; Tue, 17 May 2005 18:09:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 889681FE0C; Tue, 17 May 2005 18:09:13 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 479831FE03 for ; Tue, 17 May 2005 18:08:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from psmtp.com (exprod8og2.obsmtp.com [64.18.3.203]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with SMTP id F2FD51FD3E for ; Tue, 17 May 2005 18:08:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from source ([66.10.55.3]) by exprod8ob2.obsmtp.com ([64.18.7.12]) with SMTP; Tue, 17 May 2005 15:07:08 PDT Received: from mail1.bluesocket.com ([192.168.168.32]) by mailfe.bluesocket.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 17 May 2005 17:58:16 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7232.53 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP poll results and next steps Message-ID: <0240FDD68D6C1F4289F73D134A2536A11E4273@mail1.bluesocket.com> Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP poll results and next steps Thread-Index: AcVUdWld+IofLLWkSiGYzgcSJUm9sQCCzqJQAJq45GAAYdW98AAAzfLwAAurCEAAIZF2IA== From: "Dick Eckard" To: "Pat Calhoun" , , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 May 2005 21:58:16.0030 (UTC) FILETIME=[8738DFE0:01C55B2B] X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 17:58:09 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I agree that each claim needs to be justified by the authors. I was looking at what you supplied as a good start towards a summary table, with references back to the text. As a summary table, a column per proposal seems like a good presentation form. Dick Eckard Chief RF Scientist Bluesocket, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: Pat Calhoun [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com]=20 Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 3:56 PM To: Dick Eckard; Dorothy.Gellert@nokia.com; capwap@frascone.com Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP poll results and next steps I suppose I'm confused as to what the expectation from the WG is on the authors of the proposals. I would expect that even if an 'S' is supplied, sufficient justification is required to be able to make the claim. This is why I had envisioned that there would be a complete section for every requirement, and whether the protocol was in compliance, partially in compliance or not in compliance, there would be specific pointers to help the evaluators make a determination. That said, I like the 'S', 'P' or 'X' in the table - it would increase the readability. Pat Calhoun CTO, Wireless Networking Business Unit Cisco Systems =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: capwap-admin@frascone.com=20 > [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] On Behalf Of Dick Eckard > Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 5:22 PM > To: Dorothy.Gellert@nokia.com; pcalhoun@cisco.com; capwap@frascone.com > Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP poll results and next steps >=20 > I agree that this seems a reasonable approach. Perhaps a=20 > single column response with S, P or X, instead of Pat's three=20 > columns, and then a list of numbered notes explaining any=20 > deviations at the bottom. >=20 > Dick Eckard > Chief RF Scientist > Bluesocket, Inc. >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: capwap-admin@frascone.com=20 > [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] On Behalf Of=20 > Dorothy.Gellert@nokia.com > Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 9:58 AM > To: pcalhoun@cisco.com; capwap@frascone.com > Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP poll results and next steps >=20 > This suggestion seems reasonable to me. Are there any=20 > comments from the WG and especially the individual protocol=20 > draft editors? >=20 > Regards, > Dorothy >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: capwap-admin@frascone.com [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com]On > Behalf Of ext Pat Calhoun > Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 12:50 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Cc: Gellert Dorothy (Nokia-ES/MtView) > Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP poll results and next steps >=20 >=20 > Dorothy, >=20 > I think it is important to make sure that we have a=20 > consistent approach at documenting protocol conformance. The=20 > lack of such consistency will cause the evaluation phase to=20 > be unnecessarily complex. >=20 > From the e-mail below, you state that a protocol needs to=20 > comply with the problem statement, the taxonomy document and=20 > the objectives document. I can easily understand how one can=20 > specify conformance (or not) against the objectives document,=20 > but it is much less clear when it comes to the taxonomy and=20 > problem statement draft (which the latter was included in the=20 > objectives document). >=20 > What I would like to propose is that the authors of the=20 > documents use every objectives in the document, and for every=20 > objective provide some text describing the conformance, and=20 > finally a conformance rating in the form of (satisfies=20 > objective, partially satisfies objective or does not satify=20 > objective). >=20 > For example: >=20 > 3.0 Mandatory Objectives > 3.1 Interoperability Objective > The CAPWAP protocol must include sufficient=20 > capabilities negotiations > to distinguish between major types of WTPs. > =09 > 3.1.1 Protocol Evaluation > The xxx protocol defines a mechanism whereby the WTP... >=20 > 3.1.2 Compliance > The xxx satisfies this CAPWAP objective >=20 > Lastly, it would be a good idea for the documents to include=20 > a compliance summary table, in the following form: >=20 >=20 > Partially Does not > Satisfies Satisfies Satisfy >=20 > Logical Groups X > Support for Traffic Separation X > Wireless Terminal Transparency X > Configuration Consistency X > Firmware Trigger X > Monitoring and Exchange of=20 > System-wide Resource State X > Resource Control Objective X > CAPWAP Protocol Security X > System-wide Security X > IEEE 802.11i Considerations X > Interoperability Objective X > Protocol Specifications X > Vendor Independence X > Vendor Flexibility X > Multiple Authentication Mechanisms X > Support for Future Wireless > Technologies X > Support for New IEEE Requirements X > Interconnection Objective X > Access Control X > Support for Non-CAPWAP WTPs X > Technical Specifications X > AP Fast Handoff X > Thoughts? >=20 > Pat Calhoun > CTO, Wireless Networking Business Unit > Cisco Systems >=20 > =20 >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: capwap-admin@frascone.com > > [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] On Behalf Of=20 > > Dorothy.Gellert@nokia.com > > Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 4:28 PM > > To: capwap@frascone.com > > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP poll results and next steps > >=20 > > Hi WG, > >=20 > > Sorry for the delay in this email. I thought I sent this out last=20 > > week on Friday, but I just noticed the address was misspelled! > > Thanks for your patience and participation in the poll. > >=20 > > Regards, > > Dorothy > >=20 > >=20 > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Gellert Dorothy (Nokia-ES/MtView) =20 > > > Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 1:59 AM > > > To: 'capwap@frrascone.com' > > > Cc: Bert Wijnen (E-mail); Mani Mahalingam (E-mail); Kessens=20 > > David (Nokia-NET/MtView); Gellert Dorothy (Nokia-ES/MtView) > > > Subject: CAPWAP poll results and next steps > > >=20 > > > The CAPWAP poll concluded on May 5th. The results of the > > "CAPWAP protocols to evaluate" poll are as follows: > > >=20 > > > CTP: YES: 37 NO: 2 > > > WICOP: YES: 36 NO: 3 > > > SLAPP: YES: 21 NO: 18 > > > LWAPP: YES: 38 NO: 1 > > >=20 > > > The protocol most in question was SLAPP. Since 21 out 39 > > people felt SLAPP should be evaluated, rough consensus=20 > dictates that=20 > > we will evaluate all 4 protocols. > > >=20 > > > The next step is for the champion of each protocol to > > submit an individual draft describing how their protocol meets the=20 > > Objectives draft, the taxonomy draft and the > > Problem statement. The first version of these drafts should=20 > > be submitted to the WG by Tuesday, May 31st. > > >=20 > > > Note the Objectives draft is still subject to change, and > > these conformance drafts will have to be updated to reflect the new=20 > > objectives. We are requesting these individual evaluations before=20 > > finalizing the Objectives so the WG can begin commenting=20 > towards the=20 > > protocol evaluation as soon as possible. > > >=20 > > > Thanks to everyone who participated in the poll. =20 > > >=20 > > > Regards, > > > WG Chairs > > >=20 > > >=20 > > _______________________________________________ > > Capwap mailing list > > Capwap@frascone.com > > http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > _______________________________________________ > Capwap mailing list > Capwap@frascone.com > http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > _______________________________________________ > Capwap mailing list > Capwap@frascone.com > http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > _______________________________________________ > Capwap mailing list > Capwap@frascone.com > http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Tue May 17 19:06:08 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA01007 for ; Tue, 17 May 2005 19:06:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0D81202C0; Tue, 17 May 2005 19:06:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 898982026C; Tue, 17 May 2005 19:06:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 671CF2026C for ; Tue, 17 May 2005 19:05:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from syd-iport-1.cisco.com (syd-iport-1.cisco.com [64.104.193.196]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3E1B1FE0C for ; Tue, 17 May 2005 19:05:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from syd-core-1.cisco.com (64.104.193.198) by syd-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 May 2005 09:20:19 +1000 Received: from pacalhouwxp (syd-vpn-client-254-127.cisco.com [10.66.254.127]) by syd-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j4HMjxet021591; Wed, 18 May 2005 08:46:10 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <200505172246.j4HMjxet021591@syd-core-1.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun" To: "'Dick Eckard'" , , Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP poll results and next steps MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 In-Reply-To: <0240FDD68D6C1F4289F73D134A2536A11E4273@mail1.bluesocket.com> Thread-Index: AcVUdWld+IofLLWkSiGYzgcSJUm9sQCCzqJQAJq45GAAYdW98AAAzfLwAAurCEAAIZF2IAABweRA X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 15:46:21 -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ah - yes, I agree, with the understanding that the evaluation team may end up with different conformance ratings based on their assessment. Pat Calhoun CTO, Wireless Networking Business Unit Cisco Systems > -----Original Message----- > From: capwap-admin@frascone.com > [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] On Behalf Of Dick Eckard > Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 2:58 PM > To: Pat Calhoun; Dorothy.Gellert@nokia.com; capwap@frascone.com > Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP poll results and next steps > > I agree that each claim needs to be justified by the authors. > I was looking at what you supplied as a good start towards a > summary table, with references back to the text. As a > summary table, a column per proposal seems like a good > presentation form. > > Dick Eckard > Chief RF Scientist > Bluesocket, Inc. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 3:56 PM > To: Dick Eckard; Dorothy.Gellert@nokia.com; capwap@frascone.com > Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP poll results and next steps > > I suppose I'm confused as to what the expectation from the WG > is on the authors of the proposals. I would expect that even > if an 'S' is supplied, sufficient justification is required > to be able to make the claim. This is why I had envisioned > that there would be a complete section for every requirement, > and whether the protocol was in compliance, partially in > compliance or not in compliance, there would be specific > pointers to help the evaluators make a determination. > > That said, I like the 'S', 'P' or 'X' in the table - it would > increase the readability. > > Pat Calhoun > CTO, Wireless Networking Business Unit > Cisco Systems > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: capwap-admin@frascone.com > > [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] On Behalf Of Dick Eckard > > Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 5:22 PM > > To: Dorothy.Gellert@nokia.com; pcalhoun@cisco.com; > capwap@frascone.com > > Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP poll results and next steps > > > > I agree that this seems a reasonable approach. Perhaps a single > > column response with S, P or X, instead of Pat's three columns, and > > then a list of numbered notes explaining any deviations at > the bottom. > > > > Dick Eckard > > Chief RF Scientist > > Bluesocket, Inc. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: capwap-admin@frascone.com > > [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] On Behalf Of > > Dorothy.Gellert@nokia.com > > Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 9:58 AM > > To: pcalhoun@cisco.com; capwap@frascone.com > > Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP poll results and next steps > > > > This suggestion seems reasonable to me. Are there any > comments from > > the WG and especially the individual protocol draft editors? > > > > Regards, > > Dorothy > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: capwap-admin@frascone.com [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com]On > > Behalf Of ext Pat Calhoun > > Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 12:50 PM > > To: capwap@frascone.com > > Cc: Gellert Dorothy (Nokia-ES/MtView) > > Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP poll results and next steps > > > > > > Dorothy, > > > > I think it is important to make sure that we have a consistent > > approach at documenting protocol conformance. The lack of such > > consistency will cause the evaluation phase to be unnecessarily > > complex. > > > > From the e-mail below, you state that a protocol needs to > comply with > > the problem statement, the taxonomy document and the objectives > > document. I can easily understand how one can specify > conformance (or > > not) against the objectives document, but it is much less > clear when > > it comes to the taxonomy and problem statement draft (which > the latter > > was included in the objectives document). > > > > What I would like to propose is that the authors of the > documents use > > every objectives in the document, and for every objective > provide some > > text describing the conformance, and finally a conformance > rating in > > the form of (satisfies objective, partially satisfies objective or > > does not satify objective). > > > > For example: > > > > 3.0 Mandatory Objectives > > 3.1 Interoperability Objective > > The CAPWAP protocol must include sufficient > capabilities negotiations > > to distinguish between major types of WTPs. > > > > 3.1.1 Protocol Evaluation > > The xxx protocol defines a mechanism whereby the WTP... > > > > 3.1.2 Compliance > > The xxx satisfies this CAPWAP objective > > > > Lastly, it would be a good idea for the documents to include a > > compliance summary table, in the following form: > > > > > > Partially > Does not > > Satisfies Satisfies > Satisfy > > > > Logical Groups X > > Support for Traffic Separation X > > Wireless Terminal Transparency X > > Configuration Consistency X > > Firmware Trigger X > > Monitoring and Exchange of > > System-wide Resource State X > > Resource Control Objective X > > CAPWAP Protocol Security X > > System-wide Security X > > IEEE 802.11i Considerations X > > Interoperability Objective X > > Protocol Specifications X > > Vendor Independence X > > Vendor Flexibility X > > Multiple Authentication Mechanisms X > > Support for Future Wireless > > Technologies X > > Support for New IEEE Requirements X > > Interconnection Objective X > > Access Control X > > Support for Non-CAPWAP WTPs X > > Technical Specifications X > > AP Fast Handoff X > > Thoughts? > > > > Pat Calhoun > > CTO, Wireless Networking Business Unit Cisco Systems > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: capwap-admin@frascone.com > > > [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] On Behalf Of > > > Dorothy.Gellert@nokia.com > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 4:28 PM > > > To: capwap@frascone.com > > > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP poll results and next steps > > > > > > Hi WG, > > > > > > Sorry for the delay in this email. I thought I sent this > out last > > > week on Friday, but I just noticed the address was misspelled! > > > Thanks for your patience and participation in the poll. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Dorothy > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Gellert Dorothy (Nokia-ES/MtView) > > > > Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 1:59 AM > > > > To: 'capwap@frrascone.com' > > > > Cc: Bert Wijnen (E-mail); Mani Mahalingam (E-mail); Kessens > > > David (Nokia-NET/MtView); Gellert Dorothy (Nokia-ES/MtView) > > > > Subject: CAPWAP poll results and next steps > > > > > > > > The CAPWAP poll concluded on May 5th. The results of the > > > "CAPWAP protocols to evaluate" poll are as follows: > > > > > > > > CTP: YES: 37 NO: 2 > > > > WICOP: YES: 36 NO: 3 > > > > SLAPP: YES: 21 NO: 18 > > > > LWAPP: YES: 38 NO: 1 > > > > > > > > The protocol most in question was SLAPP. Since 21 out 39 > > > people felt SLAPP should be evaluated, rough consensus > > dictates that > > > we will evaluate all 4 protocols. > > > > > > > > The next step is for the champion of each protocol to > > > submit an individual draft describing how their protocol > meets the > > > Objectives draft, the taxonomy draft and the > > > Problem statement. The first version of these drafts should > > > be submitted to the WG by Tuesday, May 31st. > > > > > > > > Note the Objectives draft is still subject to change, and > > > these conformance drafts will have to be updated to > reflect the new > > > objectives. We are requesting these individual > evaluations before > > > finalizing the Objectives so the WG can begin commenting > > towards the > > > protocol evaluation as soon as possible. > > > > > > > > Thanks to everyone who participated in the poll. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > WG Chairs > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Capwap mailing list > > > Capwap@frascone.com > > > http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > _______________________________________________ > > Capwap mailing list > > Capwap@frascone.com > > http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > _______________________________________________ > > Capwap mailing list > > Capwap@frascone.com > > http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > _______________________________________________ > > Capwap mailing list > > Capwap@frascone.com > > http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > _______________________________________________ > Capwap mailing list > Capwap@frascone.com > http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Tue May 17 19:16:08 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA01615 for ; Tue, 17 May 2005 19:16:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E49A203E7; Tue, 17 May 2005 19:16:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1214202C0; Tue, 17 May 2005 19:16:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91FEB202C0 for ; Tue, 17 May 2005 19:15:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp2.mei.co.jp (smtp2.mei.co.jp [133.183.129.27]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0746B20270 for ; Tue, 17 May 2005 19:15:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail-gw.jp.panasonic.com (dodgers.mei.co.jp [157.8.1.150]) by smtp2.mei.co.jp (8.12.10/3.7W/jazz) with ESMTP id j4HNFDX9002334; Wed, 18 May 2005 08:15:13 +0900 (JST) Received: by mail-gw.jp.panasonic.com (8.11.6p2/3.7W/somlx1) with ESMTP id j4HNF4c03336; Wed, 18 May 2005 08:15:04 +0900 (JST) Received: from pslexc01.psl.local (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.jp.panasonic.com (8.11.6p2/3.7W/bluejays) with ESMTP id j4HNF3222801; Wed, 18 May 2005 08:15:03 +0900 (JST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [Capwap] security in objectives draft Message-ID: <5F09D220B62F79418461A978CA0921BD272450@pslexc01.psl.local> Thread-Topic: [Capwap] security in objectives draft thread-index: AcVa350c4btHoLOnQN+b5qpKv82H5wAPeRAwAAW5/GA= From: "Cheng Hong" To: "Pat Calhoun" , "Matt Holdrege" , "Charles Clancy" , X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 07:12:11 +0800 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, Why the CAPWAP protocol needs to mandate the mechanism used in 802.11 procedures? Whether WEP should be used or not is just a local policy issue at the AC. During the negotiation between the AC and WTP, they can decide if WEP is acceptable. This is purely the operator's issue. As for the CAPWAP protocol, it should just provide means for the negotiation, e.g. for the AC to reject the WEP only WTP if the AC policy says so.=20 The pre-RSN support is still a part of the 11, even with 11i. cheers Cheng Hong =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: capwap-admin@frascone.com=20 > [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] On Behalf Of Pat Calhoun > Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 4:26 AM > To: 'Matt Holdrege'; 'Charles Clancy'; capwap@frascone.com > Subject: RE: [Capwap] security in objectives draft >=20 > > With all due respect to the installed base of WEP-only=20 > gear, the IETF=20 > > should absolutely not make any exception in this or any=20 > other similar=20 > > case. > > The legacy installed base has nothing to do with future IETF=20 > > protocols, especially when it weakens security. Just because the=20 > > CAPWAP protocol may be used by these legacy AP's, doesn't mean that=20 > > they have to be forklift upgraded. What it means is that=20 > they will not=20 > > fully comply with the security portion of the specification. Anyone=20 > > doing a security audit of such a network would reject any WEP-only=20 > > gear in any case. > >=20 > > Think if we had rejected IPsec because the massive=20 > installed base of=20 > > Windows 3.1 intel-386 PC's couldn't comply with it. > Matt, while I understand your concerns here, I don't agree=20 > that the IETF is in a position to tell AP vendors what=20 > security schemes they can and cannot support. In fact, as of=20 > today, not supporting WTP would mean that the vendor would=20 > lose their ability for WiFi certification.=20 >=20 >=20 > Pat Calhoun > CTO, Wireless Networking Business Unit > Cisco Systems > _______________________________________________ > Capwap mailing list > Capwap@frascone.com > http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap >=20 _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Tue May 17 20:03:10 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA05566 for ; Tue, 17 May 2005 20:03:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 696382044F; Tue, 17 May 2005 20:03:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91EF820365; Tue, 17 May 2005 20:03:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6011A20365 for ; Tue, 17 May 2005 20:02:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from psmtp.com (exprod8og5.obsmtp.com [64.18.3.206]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with SMTP id F0C19202A2 for ; Tue, 17 May 2005 20:02:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from source ([66.10.55.3]) by exprod8ob5.obsmtp.com ([64.18.7.12]) with SMTP; Tue, 17 May 2005 16:55:27 PDT Received: from mail1.bluesocket.com ([192.168.168.32]) by mailfe.bluesocket.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 17 May 2005 19:55:02 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7232.53 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP poll results and next steps Message-ID: <0240FDD68D6C1F4289F73D134A2536A11E4286@mail1.bluesocket.com> Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP poll results and next steps Thread-Index: AcVUdWld+IofLLWkSiGYzgcSJUm9sQCCzqJQAJq45GAAYdW98AAAzfLwAAurCEAAIZF2IAABweRAAAJcUiA= From: "Dick Eckard" To: "Pat Calhoun" , , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 May 2005 23:55:02.0022 (UTC) FILETIME=[D71E6A60:01C55B3B] X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 19:53:41 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Agreed - just looking for a common starting point and format. Dick Eckard Chief RF scientist Bluesocket, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: Pat Calhoun [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 8:46 AM To: Dick Eckard; Dorothy.Gellert@nokia.com; capwap@frascone.com Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP poll results and next steps Ah - yes, I agree, with the understanding that the evaluation team may end up with different conformance ratings based on their assessment. Pat Calhoun CTO, Wireless Networking Business Unit Cisco Systems =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: capwap-admin@frascone.com=20 > [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] On Behalf Of Dick Eckard > Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 2:58 PM > To: Pat Calhoun; Dorothy.Gellert@nokia.com; capwap@frascone.com > Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP poll results and next steps >=20 > I agree that each claim needs to be justified by the authors.=20 > I was looking at what you supplied as a good start towards a=20 > summary table, with references back to the text. As a=20 > summary table, a column per proposal seems like a good=20 > presentation form. >=20 > Dick Eckard > Chief RF Scientist > Bluesocket, Inc. >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 3:56 PM > To: Dick Eckard; Dorothy.Gellert@nokia.com; capwap@frascone.com > Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP poll results and next steps >=20 > I suppose I'm confused as to what the expectation from the WG=20 > is on the authors of the proposals. I would expect that even=20 > if an 'S' is supplied, sufficient justification is required=20 > to be able to make the claim. This is why I had envisioned=20 > that there would be a complete section for every requirement,=20 > and whether the protocol was in compliance, partially in=20 > compliance or not in compliance, there would be specific=20 > pointers to help the evaluators make a determination. >=20 > That said, I like the 'S', 'P' or 'X' in the table - it would=20 > increase the readability. >=20 > Pat Calhoun > CTO, Wireless Networking Business Unit > Cisco Systems >=20 > =20 >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: capwap-admin@frascone.com > > [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] On Behalf Of Dick Eckard > > Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 5:22 PM > > To: Dorothy.Gellert@nokia.com; pcalhoun@cisco.com;=20 > capwap@frascone.com > > Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP poll results and next steps > >=20 > > I agree that this seems a reasonable approach. Perhaps a single=20 > > column response with S, P or X, instead of Pat's three columns, and=20 > > then a list of numbered notes explaining any deviations at=20 > the bottom. > >=20 > > Dick Eckard > > Chief RF Scientist > > Bluesocket, Inc. > >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: capwap-admin@frascone.com > > [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] On Behalf Of=20 > > Dorothy.Gellert@nokia.com > > Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 9:58 AM > > To: pcalhoun@cisco.com; capwap@frascone.com > > Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP poll results and next steps > >=20 > > This suggestion seems reasonable to me. Are there any=20 > comments from=20 > > the WG and especially the individual protocol draft editors? > >=20 > > Regards, > > Dorothy > >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: capwap-admin@frascone.com [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com]On > > Behalf Of ext Pat Calhoun > > Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 12:50 PM > > To: capwap@frascone.com > > Cc: Gellert Dorothy (Nokia-ES/MtView) > > Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP poll results and next steps > >=20 > >=20 > > Dorothy, > >=20 > > I think it is important to make sure that we have a consistent=20 > > approach at documenting protocol conformance. The lack of such=20 > > consistency will cause the evaluation phase to be unnecessarily=20 > > complex. > >=20 > > From the e-mail below, you state that a protocol needs to=20 > comply with=20 > > the problem statement, the taxonomy document and the objectives=20 > > document. I can easily understand how one can specify=20 > conformance (or=20 > > not) against the objectives document, but it is much less=20 > clear when=20 > > it comes to the taxonomy and problem statement draft (which=20 > the latter=20 > > was included in the objectives document). > >=20 > > What I would like to propose is that the authors of the=20 > documents use=20 > > every objectives in the document, and for every objective=20 > provide some=20 > > text describing the conformance, and finally a conformance=20 > rating in=20 > > the form of (satisfies objective, partially satisfies objective or=20 > > does not satify objective). > >=20 > > For example: > >=20 > > 3.0 Mandatory Objectives > > 3.1 Interoperability Objective > > The CAPWAP protocol must include sufficient=20 > capabilities negotiations > > to distinguish between major types of WTPs. > > =09 > > 3.1.1 Protocol Evaluation > > The xxx protocol defines a mechanism whereby the WTP... > >=20 > > 3.1.2 Compliance > > The xxx satisfies this CAPWAP objective > >=20 > > Lastly, it would be a good idea for the documents to include a=20 > > compliance summary table, in the following form: > >=20 > >=20 > > Partially =20 > Does not > > Satisfies Satisfies =20 > Satisfy > >=20 > > Logical Groups X > > Support for Traffic Separation X > > Wireless Terminal Transparency X > > Configuration Consistency X > > Firmware Trigger X > > Monitoring and Exchange of=20 > > System-wide Resource State X > > Resource Control Objective X > > CAPWAP Protocol Security X > > System-wide Security X > > IEEE 802.11i Considerations X > > Interoperability Objective X > > Protocol Specifications X > > Vendor Independence X > > Vendor Flexibility X > > Multiple Authentication Mechanisms X > > Support for Future Wireless > > Technologies X > > Support for New IEEE Requirements X > > Interconnection Objective X > > Access Control X > > Support for Non-CAPWAP WTPs X > > Technical Specifications X > > AP Fast Handoff X > > Thoughts? > >=20 > > Pat Calhoun > > CTO, Wireless Networking Business Unit Cisco Systems > >=20 > > =20 > >=20 > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: capwap-admin@frascone.com > > > [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] On Behalf Of=20 > > > Dorothy.Gellert@nokia.com > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 4:28 PM > > > To: capwap@frascone.com > > > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP poll results and next steps > > >=20 > > > Hi WG, > > >=20 > > > Sorry for the delay in this email. I thought I sent this=20 > out last=20 > > > week on Friday, but I just noticed the address was misspelled! > > > Thanks for your patience and participation in the poll. > > >=20 > > > Regards, > > > Dorothy > > >=20 > > >=20 > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Gellert Dorothy (Nokia-ES/MtView) =20 > > > > Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 1:59 AM > > > > To: 'capwap@frrascone.com' > > > > Cc: Bert Wijnen (E-mail); Mani Mahalingam (E-mail); Kessens=20 > > > David (Nokia-NET/MtView); Gellert Dorothy (Nokia-ES/MtView) > > > > Subject: CAPWAP poll results and next steps > > > >=20 > > > > The CAPWAP poll concluded on May 5th. The results of the > > > "CAPWAP protocols to evaluate" poll are as follows: > > > >=20 > > > > CTP: YES: 37 NO: 2 > > > > WICOP: YES: 36 NO: 3 > > > > SLAPP: YES: 21 NO: 18 > > > > LWAPP: YES: 38 NO: 1 > > > >=20 > > > > The protocol most in question was SLAPP. Since 21 out 39 > > > people felt SLAPP should be evaluated, rough consensus > > dictates that > > > we will evaluate all 4 protocols. > > > >=20 > > > > The next step is for the champion of each protocol to > > > submit an individual draft describing how their protocol=20 > meets the=20 > > > Objectives draft, the taxonomy draft and the > > > Problem statement. The first version of these drafts should=20 > > > be submitted to the WG by Tuesday, May 31st. > > > >=20 > > > > Note the Objectives draft is still subject to change, and > > > these conformance drafts will have to be updated to=20 > reflect the new=20 > > > objectives. We are requesting these individual=20 > evaluations before=20 > > > finalizing the Objectives so the WG can begin commenting > > towards the > > > protocol evaluation as soon as possible. > > > >=20 > > > > Thanks to everyone who participated in the poll. =20 > > > >=20 > > > > Regards, > > > > WG Chairs > > > >=20 > > > >=20 > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Capwap mailing list > > > Capwap@frascone.com > > > http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > _______________________________________________ > > Capwap mailing list > > Capwap@frascone.com > > http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > _______________________________________________ > > Capwap mailing list > > Capwap@frascone.com > > http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > _______________________________________________ > > Capwap mailing list > > Capwap@frascone.com > > http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > _______________________________________________ > Capwap mailing list > Capwap@frascone.com > http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Tue May 17 20:25:09 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA06926 for ; Tue, 17 May 2005 20:25:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 114232050C; Tue, 17 May 2005 20:25:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38C7F2049A; Tue, 17 May 2005 20:25:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D68320450 for ; Tue, 17 May 2005 20:24:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from vms044pub.verizon.net (vms044pub.verizon.net [206.46.252.44]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FFEA203E7 for ; Tue, 17 May 2005 20:24:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Matt-Holdrege.verizon.net ([208.179.69.254]) by vms044.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2 HotFix 0.04 (built Dec 24 2004)) with ESMTPA id <0IGN005VGT40QDV5@vms044.mailsrvcs.net> for capwap@frascone.com; Tue, 17 May 2005 19:24:05 -0500 (CDT) From: Matt Holdrege Subject: RE: [Capwap] security in objectives draft In-reply-to: <200505172026.j4HKQPER005315@sj-core-1.cisco.com> X-Sender: res06gzk@incoming.verizon.net To: "Pat Calhoun" , "'Charles Clancy'" , Message-id: <6.1.2.0.2.20050517171747.031ead40@incoming.verizon.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.1.2.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed References: <6.1.2.0.2.20050517022613.02fe4260@incoming.verizon.net> <200505172026.j4HKQPER005315@sj-core-1.cisco.com> X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 17:23:58 -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) At 01:26 PM 5/17/2005, Pat Calhoun wrote: > > With all due respect to the installed base of WEP-only gear, > > the IETF should absolutely not make any exception in this or > > any other similar case. > > The legacy installed base has nothing to do with future IETF > > protocols, especially when it weakens security. Just because > > the CAPWAP protocol may be used by these legacy AP's, doesn't > > mean that they have to be forklift upgraded. What it means is > > that they will not fully comply with the security portion of > > the specification. Anyone doing a security audit of such a > > network would reject any WEP-only gear in any case. > > > > Think if we had rejected IPsec because the massive installed > > base of Windows 3.1 intel-386 PC's couldn't comply with it. >Matt, while I understand your concerns here, I don't agree that >the IETF is in a position to tell AP vendors what security schemes >they can and cannot support. In fact, as of today, not supporting >WTP would mean that the vendor would lose their ability for >WiFi certification. > > >Pat Calhoun >CTO, Wireless Networking Business Unit >Cisco Systems First of all the IETF tells all vendors of all products what they MUST and MUST NOT support to comply with an RFC. AP vendors are no different from anyone else and AP vendors already support lots of MUST's in other RFC's. Secondly, I don't think the WiFi Alliance has anything like a normative reference to any RFC's right? The WiFi alliance can insert into their documents whatever they want and they can say that "even though the IETF CAPWAP RFC says no to WEP, we will allow it for our certification tests." My concern is the integrity of the IETF and RFC's. We shouldn't stoop to antiquated marketing requirements, especially where security is concerned. _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Tue May 17 20:33:08 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA08185 for ; Tue, 17 May 2005 20:33:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA44720511; Tue, 17 May 2005 20:33:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0462720450; Tue, 17 May 2005 20:33:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D511B20450 for ; Tue, 17 May 2005 20:32:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cba0smtp01.CBA0.centerbeam.com (smtp4.centerbeam.com [63.120.115.248]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA88D203E7 for ; Tue, 17 May 2005 20:32:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cba0e2k00.CBA0.centerbeam.com ([64.95.101.25]) by cba0smtp01.CBA0.centerbeam.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Tue, 17 May 2005 17:33:00 -0700 Received: from CBA0E2K06.CBA0.centerbeam.com ([64.95.101.40]) by cba0e2k00.CBA0.centerbeam.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Tue, 17 May 2005 17:32:30 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [Capwap] security in objectives draft Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] security in objectives draft Thread-Index: AcVa350c4btHoLOnQN+b5qpKv82H5wAPeRAwAAMFdsA= From: "Darren Loher" To: "Pat Calhoun" , "Matt Holdrege" , "Charles Clancy" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 May 2005 00:32:30.0002 (UTC) FILETIME=[1304F120:01C55B41] X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 17:32:23 -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable CAPWAP's scope is to define a solution between the WTP and AC. It is here that we do need to take a stand on the minimum security requirements. I do believe we owe it to the community to specify a minimum security level and explicitly require that additional mechanisms be allowed in the future, should the default/minimum become compromised in the future. CAPWAP probably shouldn't be directly concerned with which WTP to STA/client security mechanisms are supported. But rather CAPWAP should make sure that it can "transparently transport" the configuration/negotiation of WTP to STA security according to an administratively defined policy, stored on or upstream of the AC. =20 That being said, the WiFi alliance has been doing a good job of informing and marketing it's certifications and labels for what level of security devices are certified to. Network implementers are starting to get to know what WPA and WPA2 are. -- Darren Loher Senior Architect Roving Planet =20 http://www.rovingplanet.com +1.303.996.7578 > -----Original Message----- > From: capwap-admin@frascone.com [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] On > Behalf Of Pat Calhoun > Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 2:26 PM > To: 'Matt Holdrege'; 'Charles Clancy'; capwap@frascone.com > Subject: RE: [Capwap] security in objectives draft >=20 > > With all due respect to the installed base of WEP-only gear, > > the IETF should absolutely not make any exception in this or > > any other similar case. > > The legacy installed base has nothing to do with future IETF > > protocols, especially when it weakens security. Just because > > the CAPWAP protocol may be used by these legacy AP's, doesn't > > mean that they have to be forklift upgraded. What it means is > > that they will not fully comply with the security portion of > > the specification. Anyone doing a security audit of such a > > network would reject any WEP-only gear in any case. > > > > Think if we had rejected IPsec because the massive installed > > base of Windows 3.1 intel-386 PC's couldn't comply with it. > Matt, while I understand your concerns here, I don't agree that > the IETF is in a position to tell AP vendors what security schemes > they can and cannot support. In fact, as of today, not supporting > WTP would mean that the vendor would lose their ability for > WiFi certification. >=20 >=20 > Pat Calhoun > CTO, Wireless Networking Business Unit > Cisco Systems > _______________________________________________ > Capwap mailing list > Capwap@frascone.com > http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Tue May 17 20:33:26 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA08248 for ; Tue, 17 May 2005 20:33:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1665D20450; Tue, 17 May 2005 20:33:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FA0B20545; Tue, 17 May 2005 20:33:17 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C096720450 for ; Tue, 17 May 2005 20:32:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from syd-iport-1.cisco.com (syd-iport-1.cisco.com [64.104.193.196]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39B67203E7 for ; Tue, 17 May 2005 20:32:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from syd-core-1.cisco.com (64.104.193.198) by syd-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 May 2005 10:48:03 +1000 Received: from pacalhouwxp (syd-vpn-client-254-122.cisco.com [10.66.254.122]) by syd-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j4I0Vlet003796; Wed, 18 May 2005 10:31:55 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <200505180031.j4I0Vlet003796@syd-core-1.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun" To: "'Matt Holdrege'" , "'Charles Clancy'" , Subject: RE: [Capwap] security in objectives draft MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 In-Reply-To: <6.1.2.0.2.20050517171747.031ead40@incoming.verizon.net> Thread-Index: AcVbQB6jqWcat0J4SfGDQkRsW5THUgAAES8w X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 17:32:13 -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > First of all the IETF tells all vendors of all products what > they MUST and MUST NOT support to comply with an RFC. AP > vendors are no different from anyone else and AP vendors > already support lots of MUST's in other RFC's. > Secondly, I don't think the WiFi Alliance has anything like a > normative reference to any RFC's right? The WiFi alliance can > insert into their documents whatever they want and they can > say that "even though the IETF CAPWAP RFC says no to WEP, we > will allow it for our certification tests." Please don't misunderstand my position. I'm in no way supportive of folks running WEP in their networks, but the reality is that 802.11 vendors cannot adhere to an RFC that causes them to be out of compliance with WFA. Furthermore, there are hundreds of thousands of devices of there (e.g., legacy scanners) that cannot be upgraded, and it is possible that customers running these networks are less concerned about the security of that data - while wanting to provide higher security SSIDs for other applications - which is a requirement defined in the objectives document, may I add. Pat Calhoun CTO, Wireless Networking Business Unit Cisco Systems > -----Original Message----- > From: capwap-admin@frascone.com > [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] On Behalf Of Matt Holdrege > Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 5:24 PM > To: Pat Calhoun; 'Charles Clancy'; capwap@frascone.com > Subject: RE: [Capwap] security in objectives draft > > At 01:26 PM 5/17/2005, Pat Calhoun wrote: > > > With all due respect to the installed base of WEP-only gear, the > > > IETF should absolutely not make any exception in this or > any other > > > similar case. > > > The legacy installed base has nothing to do with future IETF > > > protocols, especially when it weakens security. Just because the > > > CAPWAP protocol may be used by these legacy AP's, doesn't > mean that > > > they have to be forklift upgraded. What it means is that > they will > > > not fully comply with the security portion of the specification. > > > Anyone doing a security audit of such a network would reject any > > > WEP-only gear in any case. > > > > > > Think if we had rejected IPsec because the massive > installed base of > > > Windows 3.1 intel-386 PC's couldn't comply with it. > >Matt, while I understand your concerns here, I don't agree that the > >IETF is in a position to tell AP vendors what security > schemes they can > >and cannot support. In fact, as of today, not supporting WTP > would mean > >that the vendor would lose their ability for WiFi certification. > > > > > >Pat Calhoun > >CTO, Wireless Networking Business Unit > >Cisco Systems > > > My concern is the integrity of the IETF and RFC's. We > shouldn't stoop to antiquated marketing requirements, > especially where security is concerned. > > > _______________________________________________ > Capwap mailing list > Capwap@frascone.com > http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Tue May 17 20:48:10 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA09727 for ; Tue, 17 May 2005 20:48:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F29F20533; Tue, 17 May 2005 20:48:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1A7B2049A; Tue, 17 May 2005 20:48:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AAF12049A for ; Tue, 17 May 2005 20:47:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cba0smtp01.CBA0.centerbeam.com (smtp4.centerbeam.com [63.120.115.248]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D94B20492 for ; Tue, 17 May 2005 20:47:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from CBA0E2K01.CBA0.centerbeam.com ([64.95.101.24]) by cba0smtp01.CBA0.centerbeam.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Tue, 17 May 2005 17:47:27 -0700 Received: from CBA0E2K06.CBA0.centerbeam.com ([64.95.101.40]) by CBA0E2K01.CBA0.centerbeam.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Tue, 17 May 2005 17:46:56 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP poll results and next steps Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP poll results and next steps Thread-Index: AcVUdWld+IofLLWkSiGYzgcSJUm9sQCCzqJQAJq45GAAT6uTUAAewj/gACX7epA= From: "Darren Loher" To: "Pat Calhoun" , Cc: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 May 2005 00:46:56.0851 (UTC) FILETIME=[17B39A30:01C55B43] X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 17:46:49 -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable How about this for protocol authors documenting "objectives compliance"? The protocol authors could include a section to their draft called "CAPWAP Objectives". This section would mirror the table of contents for section 5 of the objectives draft and briefly document (1-2 sentences minimum) how the protocol meets each objective, including a reference to the appropriate section in their protocol draft. 5. Objectives=20 5.1 Mandatory and Accepted Objectives =20 5.1.1 Logical Groups =20 The xxx protocol supports logical groups via it's=20 implementation of x, y and z described in section 8. 5.1.2 Support for Traffic Separation=20 xxx protocol supports the separation of control and data traffic by specifying methods for use of tunnels in section 9. The=20 solution includes support for a control tunnel, multiple data tunnels and split tunnels. 5.1.3 Wireless Terminal Transparency=20 .... etc ... I would invite the protocol authors to make more complete, stronger statements than the above, but something like the above should be "good enough". The table format suggested is nice to have in addition to the above descriptions for a quick reference. The evaluation draft would include its own, more detailed write-up of how each draft implements each objective and document how strong, weak, loose, or specific the protocol defines the solution to each objective. The evaluation draft would also document where the protocol goes beyond the objectives. -Darren > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 12:00 AM > To: Darren Loher; capwap@frascone.com > Cc: Dorothy.Gellert@nokia.com > Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP poll results and next steps >=20 > Darren, I'm a little confused. While I would be OK with this being done in > a > protocol evaluation draft, what would you expect to see from the protocol > authors? >=20 > Pat Calhoun > CTO, Wireless Networking Business Unit > Cisco Systems _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Tue May 17 21:01:08 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA10516 for ; Tue, 17 May 2005 21:01:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7265820533; Tue, 17 May 2005 21:01:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E770C204B2; Tue, 17 May 2005 21:01:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76ECF204B2 for ; Tue, 17 May 2005 21:00:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from syd-iport-1.cisco.com (syd-iport-1.cisco.com [64.104.193.196]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DFED2049A for ; Tue, 17 May 2005 21:00:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from syd-core-1.cisco.com (64.104.193.198) by syd-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 May 2005 11:16:02 +1000 Received: from pacalhouwxp (syd-vpn-client-254-122.cisco.com [10.66.254.122]) by syd-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j4I0wTet006928; Wed, 18 May 2005 10:58:37 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <200505180058.j4I0wTet006928@syd-core-1.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun" To: "'Darren Loher'" , Cc: , "'Pat Calhoun'" Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP poll results and next steps MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 In-Reply-To: Thread-Index: AcVUdWld+IofLLWkSiGYzgcSJUm9sQCCzqJQAJq45GAAT6uTUAAewj/gACX7epAAAdse8A== X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 17:58:46 -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit That works for me, with the understanding that the LWAPP CAPWAP protocol comformance specification will be significantly more complete than the suggestion below. Pat Calhoun CTO, Wireless Networking Business Unit Cisco Systems > -----Original Message----- > From: capwap-admin@frascone.com > [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] On Behalf Of Darren Loher > Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 5:47 PM > To: Pat Calhoun; capwap@frascone.com > Cc: Dorothy.Gellert@nokia.com > Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP poll results and next steps > > How about this for protocol authors documenting "objectives > compliance"? > > The protocol authors could include a section to their draft > called "CAPWAP Objectives". This section would mirror the > table of contents for section 5 of the objectives draft and > briefly document (1-2 sentences minimum) how the protocol > meets each objective, including a reference to the > appropriate section in their protocol draft. > > > 5. Objectives > 5.1 Mandatory and Accepted Objectives > 5.1.1 Logical Groups > The xxx protocol supports logical groups via it's > implementation of x, y and z described in section 8. > > 5.1.2 Support for Traffic Separation > xxx protocol supports the separation of control > and data traffic > by specifying methods for use of tunnels in section 9. > The > solution includes support for a control tunnel, multiple > > data tunnels and split tunnels. > > 5.1.3 Wireless Terminal Transparency > .... etc ... > > > I would invite the protocol authors to make more complete, > stronger statements than the above, but something like the > above should be "good enough". > > The table format suggested is nice to have in addition to the > above descriptions for a quick reference. > > The evaluation draft would include its own, more detailed > write-up of how each draft implements each objective and > document how strong, weak, loose, or specific the protocol > defines the solution to each objective. > The evaluation draft would also document where the protocol > goes beyond the objectives. > > -Darren > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Pat Calhoun [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 12:00 AM > > To: Darren Loher; capwap@frascone.com > > Cc: Dorothy.Gellert@nokia.com > > Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP poll results and next steps > > > > Darren, I'm a little confused. While I would be OK with this being > done in > > a > > protocol evaluation draft, what would you expect to see from the > protocol > > authors? > > > > Pat Calhoun > > CTO, Wireless Networking Business Unit Cisco Systems > _______________________________________________ > Capwap mailing list > Capwap@frascone.com > http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From douty@doramail.com Tue May 17 21:04:34 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA10794; Tue, 17 May 2005 21:04:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [222.119.128.159] (helo=132.151.6.1) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DYDG5-0007Lq-28; Tue, 17 May 2005 21:22:02 -0400 Authentication-Results: bahrein.es from=premium.cherokee.es; domainkeys=neutral (no sig) X-Originating-IP: [111.82.80.128] Received: from premium.ecumenic.es (EHLO premium.borderline.es) by premium.contemptuous.es with SMTP; Wed, 18 May 2005 06:06:45 +0400 Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 22:07:45 -0400 From: "Marsha Case" To: brenton.daniels@ietf.org Cc: bridge-mib@ietf.org, bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org, business@ietf.org, calsch@ietf.org, cancer@ietf.org, capwap-archive@ietf.org, ccips@ietf.org, cclark@ietf.org, cdi-archive@ietf.org, cdir-admin@ietf.org, cfrg@ietf.org, cfrg-admin@ietf.org Subject: Instant low rates Message-ID: <113241.8578.douty@doramail.com> X-Mailer: Kana Connect 6 X-Spam-Score: 9.3 (+++++++++) X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Scan-Signature: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3 Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.truthfu1ly.com/sign.asp Best Regards, Luz Jacobson to be remov(ed: http://www.truthfu1ly.com/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From capwap-admin@frascone.com Tue May 17 21:19:09 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA11238 for ; Tue, 17 May 2005 21:19:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2888B20575; Tue, 17 May 2005 21:19:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AE0A2052E; Tue, 17 May 2005 21:19:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56C3B2052E for ; Tue, 17 May 2005 21:18:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mx.sj.symbol.com (mx.sj.symbol.com [65.115.69.195]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F66B2052D for ; Tue, 17 May 2005 21:17:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from gwianameserver.sj.symbol.com (gwianameserver.sj.symbol.com [157.235.95.252]) by mx.sj.symbol.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j4I15oDq030058 for ; Tue, 17 May 2005 18:05:51 -0700 Received: from SJ-DOM-MTA by gwianameserver.sj.symbol.com with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 17 May 2005 18:17:19 -0700 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.0.4 From: "Clint Chaplin" To: , , , Subject: RE: [Capwap] security in objectives draft Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 18:17:16 -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable "antiquated marketing requirements" are not the only reason for this = position. Low cost/low power terminals, especially legacy devices, = currently are deployed in the industry, and need WEP support in the = infrastructure. Laptops are not the only portable/mobile devices to use 802.11, although = it has by far the greatest mindshare withing various standards bodies in = this space. Small industrial handheld terminals are a viable market. Besides, whatever protocol CAPWAP settles upon should be completely = agnostic to the security policy being used over the air. Clint (JOATMON) Chaplin Wireless Security Advisor Wireless Standards Manager >>> Matt Holdrege 05/17/05 17:26 PM >>> At 01:26 PM 5/17/2005, Pat Calhoun wrote: > > With all due respect to the installed base of WEP-only gear, > > the IETF should absolutely not make any exception in this or > > any other similar case. > > The legacy installed base has nothing to do with future IETF > > protocols, especially when it weakens security. Just because > > the CAPWAP protocol may be used by these legacy AP's, doesn't > > mean that they have to be forklift upgraded. What it means is > > that they will not fully comply with the security portion of > > the specification. Anyone doing a security audit of such a > > network would reject any WEP-only gear in any case. > > > > Think if we had rejected IPsec because the massive installed > > base of Windows 3.1 intel-386 PC's couldn't comply with it. >Matt, while I understand your concerns here, I don't agree that >the IETF is in a position to tell AP vendors what security schemes >they can and cannot support. In fact, as of today, not supporting >WTP would mean that the vendor would lose their ability for >WiFi certification. > > >Pat Calhoun >CTO, Wireless Networking Business Unit >Cisco Systems First of all the IETF tells all vendors of all products what they MUST = and=20 MUST NOT support to comply with an RFC. AP vendors are no different = from=20 anyone else and AP vendors already support lots of MUST's in other = RFC's.=20 Secondly, I don't think the WiFi Alliance has anything like a normative=20 reference to any RFC's right? The WiFi alliance can insert into their=20 documents whatever they want and they can say that "even though the = IETF=20 CAPWAP RFC says no to WEP, we will allow it for our certification tests." My concern is the integrity of the IETF and RFC's. We shouldn't stoop = to=20 antiquated marketing requirements, especially where security is concerned. _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap ________________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned for computer viruses. _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Wed May 18 00:43:08 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA25414 for ; Wed, 18 May 2005 00:43:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C03962041C; Wed, 18 May 2005 00:43:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B04920426; Wed, 18 May 2005 00:43:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5A8620426 for ; Wed, 18 May 2005 00:42:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from vms046pub.verizon.net (vms046pub.verizon.net [206.46.252.46]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD0BD2041C for ; Wed, 18 May 2005 00:42:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Matt-Holdrege.verizon.net ([208.179.69.254]) by vms046.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2 HotFix 0.04 (built Dec 24 2004)) with ESMTPA id <0IGO00BWB52KOBC6@vms046.mailsrvcs.net> for capwap@frascone.com; Tue, 17 May 2005 23:42:34 -0500 (CDT) From: Matt Holdrege Subject: RE: [Capwap] security in objectives draft In-reply-to: X-Sender: res06gzk@incoming.verizon.net To: "Clint Chaplin" , , Message-id: <6.1.2.0.2.20050517213244.0262c970@incoming.verizon.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.1.2.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed References: X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 21:42:19 -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) WEP does not equal security. We should not only refrain from advocating WEP, we must use whatever communication powers we have to advise people to NOT USE WEP. Low power is no excuse for deceiving people. I agree that small terminals are a big part of the market, especially voice handsets. But voice handsets already support 802.11i (announced recently) and voice terminals have severe power restrictions. Yet at a recent conference a chip manufacturer said their small remote terminal reference implementation supported high security with 100 hours of battery time. So there is no excuse for not demanding reasonable security in wireless. At least TKIP or AES encryption should be a minimum for all currently shipping and future 802.11 products. Anything less is borderline fraudulent since we know anything less is easily cracked. As for CAPWAP being agnostic to the air security, that is a good argument. But we have requirements to control the air security so we do have to address it. -Matt At 06:17 PM 5/17/2005, Clint Chaplin wrote: >"antiquated marketing requirements" are not the only reason for this >position. Low cost/low power terminals, especially legacy devices, >currently are deployed in the industry, and need WEP support in the >infrastructure. > >Laptops are not the only portable/mobile devices to use 802.11, although >it has by far the greatest mindshare withing various standards bodies in >this space. Small industrial handheld terminals are a viable market. > >Besides, whatever protocol CAPWAP settles upon should be completely >agnostic to the security policy being used over the air. > >Clint (JOATMON) Chaplin >Wireless Security Advisor >Wireless Standards Manager > >>> Matt Holdrege 05/17/05 17:26 PM >>> >At 01:26 PM 5/17/2005, Pat Calhoun wrote: > > > With all due respect to the installed base of WEP-only gear, > > > the IETF should absolutely not make any exception in this or > > > any other similar case. > > > The legacy installed base has nothing to do with future IETF > > > protocols, especially when it weakens security. Just because > > > the CAPWAP protocol may be used by these legacy AP's, doesn't > > > mean that they have to be forklift upgraded. What it means is > > > that they will not fully comply with the security portion of > > > the specification. Anyone doing a security audit of such a > > > network would reject any WEP-only gear in any case. > > > > > > Think if we had rejected IPsec because the massive installed > > > base of Windows 3.1 intel-386 PC's couldn't comply with it. > >Matt, while I understand your concerns here, I don't agree that > >the IETF is in a position to tell AP vendors what security schemes > >they can and cannot support. In fact, as of today, not supporting > >WTP would mean that the vendor would lose their ability for > >WiFi certification. > > > > > >Pat Calhoun > >CTO, Wireless Networking Business Unit > >Cisco Systems > >First of all the IETF tells all vendors of all products what they MUST and >MUST NOT support to comply with an RFC. AP vendors are no different from >anyone else and AP vendors already support lots of MUST's in other RFC's. >Secondly, I don't think the WiFi Alliance has anything like a normative >reference to any RFC's right? The WiFi alliance can insert into their >documents whatever they want and they can say that "even though the IETF >CAPWAP RFC says no to WEP, we will allow it for our certification tests." > >My concern is the integrity of the IETF and RFC's. We shouldn't stoop to >antiquated marketing requirements, especially where security is concerned. > > >_______________________________________________ >Capwap mailing list >Capwap@frascone.com >http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > >________________________________________________________________________ >This email has been scanned for computer viruses. > >_______________________________________________ >Capwap mailing list >Capwap@frascone.com >http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Wed May 18 09:47:10 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA20967 for ; Wed, 18 May 2005 09:47:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 898CE205C7; Wed, 18 May 2005 09:47:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9A6A205B4; Wed, 18 May 2005 09:47:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D953205B4 for ; Wed, 18 May 2005 09:46:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from carrierpigeon.cs.umd.edu (carrierpigeon.cs.umd.edu [128.8.129.58]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 241F5205A2 for ; Wed, 18 May 2005 09:46:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ismene (ismene.cs.umd.edu [128.8.126.62]) by carrierpigeon.cs.umd.edu (8.12.10/8.12.5) with ESMTP id j4IDkctS024373 for ; Wed, 18 May 2005 09:46:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Charles Clancy X-X-Sender: clancy@ismene To: capwap@frascone.com Subject: RE: [Capwap] security in objectives draft In-Reply-To: <6.1.2.0.2.20050517213244.0262c970@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: References: <6.1.2.0.2.20050517213244.0262c970@incoming.verizon.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 09:42:53 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) So... it sounds like the rough consensus (compromise?) is that CAPWAP shouldn't advocate the use of WEP, but it's not necessarily our business to say people can't use it. My proposed text for the objectives draft will essentially say what I said in the first place -- that we should normatively recommend that WEP not be used. [ t. charles clancy ]--[ tcc@umd.edu ]--[ www.cs.umd.edu/~clancy ] [ computer science ]-----[ university of maryland | college park ] On Tue, 17 May 2005, Matt Holdrege wrote: > WEP does not equal security. We should not only refrain from advocating WEP, > we must use whatever communication powers we have to advise people to NOT USE > WEP. Low power is no excuse for deceiving people. I agree that small > terminals are a big part of the market, especially voice handsets. But voice > handsets already support 802.11i (announced recently) and voice terminals > have severe power restrictions. Yet at a recent conference a chip > manufacturer said their small remote terminal reference implementation > supported high security with 100 hours of battery time. So there is no excuse > for not demanding reasonable security in wireless. At least TKIP or AES > encryption should be a minimum for all currently shipping and future 802.11 > products. Anything less is borderline fraudulent since we know anything less > is easily cracked. > > As for CAPWAP being agnostic to the air security, that is a good argument. > But we have requirements to control the air security so we do have to address > it. > > -Matt > > At 06:17 PM 5/17/2005, Clint Chaplin wrote: >> "antiquated marketing requirements" are not the only reason for this >> position. Low cost/low power terminals, especially legacy devices, >> currently are deployed in the industry, and need WEP support in the >> infrastructure. >> >> Laptops are not the only portable/mobile devices to use 802.11, although >> it has by far the greatest mindshare withing various standards bodies in >> this space. Small industrial handheld terminals are a viable market. >> >> Besides, whatever protocol CAPWAP settles upon should be completely >> agnostic to the security policy being used over the air. >> >> Clint (JOATMON) Chaplin >> Wireless Security Advisor >> Wireless Standards Manager >> >>> Matt Holdrege 05/17/05 17:26 PM >>> >> At 01:26 PM 5/17/2005, Pat Calhoun wrote: >> > > With all due respect to the installed base of WEP-only gear, >> > > the IETF should absolutely not make any exception in this or >> > > any other similar case. >> > > The legacy installed base has nothing to do with future IETF >> > > protocols, especially when it weakens security. Just because >> > > the CAPWAP protocol may be used by these legacy AP's, doesn't >> > > mean that they have to be forklift upgraded. What it means is >> > > that they will not fully comply with the security portion of >> > > the specification. Anyone doing a security audit of such a >> > > network would reject any WEP-only gear in any case. >> > > >> > > Think if we had rejected IPsec because the massive installed >> > > base of Windows 3.1 intel-386 PC's couldn't comply with it. >> >Matt, while I understand your concerns here, I don't agree that >> >the IETF is in a position to tell AP vendors what security schemes >> >they can and cannot support. In fact, as of today, not supporting >> >WTP would mean that the vendor would lose their ability for >> >WiFi certification. >> > >> > >> >Pat Calhoun >> >CTO, Wireless Networking Business Unit >> >Cisco Systems >> >> First of all the IETF tells all vendors of all products what they MUST and >> MUST NOT support to comply with an RFC. AP vendors are no different from >> anyone else and AP vendors already support lots of MUST's in other RFC's. >> Secondly, I don't think the WiFi Alliance has anything like a normative >> reference to any RFC's right? The WiFi alliance can insert into their >> documents whatever they want and they can say that "even though the IETF >> CAPWAP RFC says no to WEP, we will allow it for our certification tests." >> >> My concern is the integrity of the IETF and RFC's. We shouldn't stoop to >> antiquated marketing requirements, especially where security is concerned. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Capwap mailing list >> Capwap@frascone.com >> http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap >> >> ________________________________________________________________________ >> This email has been scanned for computer viruses. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Capwap mailing list >> Capwap@frascone.com >> http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Wed May 18 09:49:10 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA21243 for ; Wed, 18 May 2005 09:49:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D53CE205DF; Wed, 18 May 2005 09:49:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D248205B5; Wed, 18 May 2005 09:49:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1419E205C9 for ; Wed, 18 May 2005 09:48:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from carrierpigeon.cs.umd.edu (carrierpigeon.cs.umd.edu [128.8.129.58]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 484F1205A2 for ; Wed, 18 May 2005 09:48:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ismene (ismene.cs.umd.edu [128.8.126.62]) by carrierpigeon.cs.umd.edu (8.12.10/8.12.5) with ESMTP id j4IDmJtS024387 for ; Wed, 18 May 2005 09:48:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Charles Clancy X-X-Sender: clancy@ismene To: capwap@frascone.com Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Subject: [Capwap] proposed security changes to objectives draft Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 09:44:34 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Comments? Suggestions? --- 5.1.8 CAPWAP Protocol Security --- OLD TEXT: The CAPWAP protocol must first provide for the participating entities - WLAN controller and WTPs - to be mutually authenticated. This is to ensure that rogue WTPs do not breach legitimate WLAN systems. For example, WTPs may need to regularly renew their authentication state with the WLAN controller. NEW TEXT: The CAPWAP protocol must first provide for the participating entities - WLAN controller and WTPs - to be explicity mutually authenticated. If authentication is performed via an authenticated key exchange, future knowledge of derived keys is not sufficient for authentication. This is to ensure that rogue WTPs do not breach legitimate WLAN systems. For example, WTPs may need to regularly renew their authentication state with the WLAN controller. Any session keys used between the AC and WTP MUST be mutually drived using entropy contributed by both parties. This ensures that no one party has control over the resulting session keys. --- OLD TEXT: While mutual authentication is necessary for CAPWAP, the protocol should not prevent the use of asymmetric, non-mutual authentication. The security considerations of such asymmetric authentication are described in the Security Considerations section. NEW TEXT: CAPWAP should not prevent the use of asymmetric authentication. The security considerations of such asymmetric authentication are described in the Security Considerations section. --- 5.1.9 System-wide Security --- NEW TEXT: While CAPWAP does not govern the wireless interface, the security used on that link will affect overall system security. Consequently, CAPWAP MUST disclaim the use of WEP by normatively recommending that WEP not be used in conjunction with CAPWAP. CAPWAP SHOULD authenticate handoffs between WTPs. When split-MAC CAPWAP is used in conjunction with 802.11i, this authentication happens implicitly via the 4-Way Handshake. With local-MAC CAPWAP, this will involve the derivation of a new PMK, either through an EAP reauthentication, or some other mechanism. [ t. charles clancy ]--[ tcc@umd.edu ]--[ www.cs.umd.edu/~clancy ] [ computer science ]-----[ university of maryland | college park ] _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Wed May 18 11:34:09 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA02531 for ; Wed, 18 May 2005 11:34:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D8A02060B; Wed, 18 May 2005 11:34:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC43A20602; Wed, 18 May 2005 11:34:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3376B20602 for ; Wed, 18 May 2005 11:33:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from vms048pub.verizon.net (vms048pub.verizon.net [206.46.252.48]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18799205F5 for ; Wed, 18 May 2005 11:33:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Matt-Holdrege.verizon.net ([208.179.69.254]) by vms048.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2 HotFix 0.04 (built Dec 24 2004)) with ESMTPA id <0IGO00B8AZ7KIQN7@vms048.mailsrvcs.net> for capwap@frascone.com; Wed, 18 May 2005 10:33:26 -0500 (CDT) From: Matt Holdrege Subject: Re: [Capwap] proposed security changes to objectives draft In-reply-to: X-Sender: res06gzk@incoming.verizon.net To: Charles Clancy , capwap@frascone.com Message-id: <6.1.2.0.2.20050518083103.01df3420@incoming.verizon.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.1.2.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed References: X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 08:33:19 -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Charles, Looks fine to me. Thanks for the comprehensive review and text suggestions. One small nit. I haven't been following all the new text in recent weeks (months?), but is WLAN Controller a normative or defined term for CAPWAP? -Matt At 06:44 AM 5/18/2005, Charles Clancy wrote: >Comments? Suggestions? > >--- > >5.1.8 CAPWAP Protocol Security > >--- > >OLD TEXT: > > The CAPWAP protocol must first provide for the participating entities > - WLAN controller and WTPs - to be mutually authenticated. This is > to ensure that rogue WTPs do not breach legitimate WLAN systems. For > example, WTPs may need to regularly renew their authentication state > with the WLAN controller. > >NEW TEXT: > > The CAPWAP protocol must first provide for the participating entities > - WLAN controller and WTPs - to be explicity mutually authenticated. > If authentication is performed via an authenticated key exchange, > future knowledge of derived keys is not sufficient for authentication. > This is to ensure that rogue WTPs do not breach legitimate WLAN > systems. For example, WTPs may need to regularly renew their > authentication state with the WLAN controller. > > Any session keys used between the AC and WTP MUST be mutually drived > using entropy contributed by both parties. This ensures that no one > party has control over the resulting session keys. > >--- > >OLD TEXT: > > While mutual authentication is necessary for CAPWAP, the protocol > should not prevent the use of asymmetric, non-mutual authentication. > The security considerations of such asymmetric authentication are > described in the Security Considerations section. > >NEW TEXT: > > CAPWAP should not prevent the use of asymmetric authentication. The > security considerations of such asymmetric authentication are > described in the Security Considerations section. > >--- > >5.1.9 System-wide Security > >--- > >NEW TEXT: > > While CAPWAP does not govern the wireless interface, the security used > on that link will affect overall system security. Consequently, > CAPWAP MUST disclaim the use of WEP by normatively recommending that > WEP not be used in conjunction with CAPWAP. > > CAPWAP SHOULD authenticate handoffs between WTPs. When split-MAC > CAPWAP is used in conjunction with 802.11i, this authentication happens > implicitly via the 4-Way Handshake. With local-MAC CAPWAP, this will > involve the derivation of a new PMK, either through an EAP > reauthentication, or some other mechanism. > > >[ t. charles clancy ]--[ tcc@umd.edu ]--[ www.cs.umd.edu/~clancy ] >[ computer science ]-----[ university of maryland | college park ] >_______________________________________________ >Capwap mailing list >Capwap@frascone.com >http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Wed May 18 12:49:09 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA11675 for ; Wed, 18 May 2005 12:49:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0165A20616; Wed, 18 May 2005 12:49:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E2C42060E; Wed, 18 May 2005 12:49:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22E9520609 for ; Wed, 18 May 2005 12:48:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from fridge.docomolabs-usa.com (key1.docomolabs-usa.com [216.98.102.225]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1AFE205F5 for ; Wed, 18 May 2005 12:48:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <012701c55bc9$8ae22e00$016115ac@dcml.docomolabsusa.com> From: "James Kempf" To: "Charles Clancy" , References: Subject: Re: [Capwap] proposed security changes to objectives draft MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 09:49:15 -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Charles, IETF really can't control what people deploy, though it can make recommendations (BCPs are of this nature). Regarding the WEP question, I believe the key point is that we want to warn people who deploy CAPWAP that they should not think CAPWAP security is sufficient to make up for WEP's deficiencies. Whether or not they decide to deploy WEP with CAPWAP is their choice, but they should have no illusions about the resulting system security. Consequently, I'd like to suggest modifying the suggested text as follows: ----- > 5.1.9 System-wide Security > > --- > > NEW TEXT: > > While CAPWAP does not govern the wireless interface, the security used > on that link will affect overall system security. Consequently, > CAPWAP MUST disclaim the use of WEP by normatively recommending that > WEP not be used in conjunction with CAPWAP. > > CAPWAP SHOULD authenticate handoffs between WTPs. When split-MAC > CAPWAP is used in conjunction with 802.11i, this authentication happens > implicitly via the 4-Way Handshake. With local-MAC CAPWAP, this will > involve the derivation of a new PMK, either through an EAP > reauthentication, or some other mechanism. > PROPOSED MODIFICATION: While CAPWAP does not govern the wireless interface, the security used on that link will affect overall system security. Although it is not possible within the CAPWAP protocol to establish normative constraints on wireless interface security for this reason, it is nevertheless important that the CAPWAP specification contain clear guidelines to avoid confusion or mistaken assumptions in deployment of CAPWAP. Consequently, the CAPWAP specification MUST recommend that WEP not be used on the wireless interface, and the specification MUST clearly indicate that the strong security design of CAPWAP will not compensate for inadequate or easily compromised security on the wireless interface. CAPWAP SHOULD authenticate handoffs between WTPs. When split-MAC CAPWAP is used in conjunction with 802.11i, this authentication happens implicitly via the 4-Way Handshake. With local-MAC CAPWAP, this will involve the derivation of a new PMK, either through an EAP reauthentication, or some other mechanism. How does that sound? jak _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Wed May 18 13:17:09 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA14464 for ; Wed, 18 May 2005 13:17:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FC5720611; Wed, 18 May 2005 13:17:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52B062049C; Wed, 18 May 2005 13:17:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 676772049C for ; Wed, 18 May 2005 13:16:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from aruba-server.arubanetworks.com (smtp.arubanetworks.com [216.31.249.252]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 357972048B for ; Wed, 18 May 2005 13:16:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp.arubanetworks.com ([10.1.1.2]) by aruba-server.arubanetworks.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Wed, 18 May 2005 10:06:37 -0700 Received: from fatcat ([10.240.1.8] RDNS failed) by smtp.arubanetworks.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Wed, 18 May 2005 10:06:36 -0700 Message-ID: <002f01c55bcb$f1eae900$020aa8c0@fatcat> From: "Randy Chou" To: Cc: "Randy Chou" Subject: RE: [Capwap] security in objectives draft MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002C_01C55B91.44FF8870" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 May 2005 17:06:36.0600 (UTC) FILETIME=[F3298380:01C55BCB] X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 10:06:33 -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_002C_01C55B91.44FF8870 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Clint, agree 100% with what you are saying. However, this also brings up an interesting problem in the security requirements themselves of the CAPWAP protocol being chosen. If WEP and less secure encryption methods are to be allowed for users which I believe they must, then that opens up possible attacks on the wired side from within the wireless domain since WEP is not secure. If a proposal for CAPWAP is susceptible to wired attacks, it is by this requirement that it is just as susceptible to a wireless attack. The seriousness of a wired security hole present in the proposal is the same as that of a wireless security hole. So whatever proposal CAPWAP ends up choosing must not have any security holes, whether wired or wireless. I would like to make sure we don't trivialize the presence of a hole just because it appears to only be on the wired side. Regards, =20 -- Randy -----Original Message----- From: capwap-admin@frascone.com [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] On Behalf Of Clint Chaplin Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 6:17 PM To: pcalhoun@cisco.com; clancy@cs.umd.edu; capwap@frascone.com; matt.holdrege@verizon.net Subject: RE: [Capwap] security in objectives draft "antiquated marketing requirements" are not the only reason for this position. Low cost/low power terminals, especially legacy devices, currently are deployed in the industry, and need WEP support in the infrastructure. Laptops are not the only portable/mobile devices to use 802.11, although it has by far the greatest mindshare withing various standards bodies in this space. Small industrial handheld terminals are a viable market. Besides, whatever protocol CAPWAP settles upon should be completely agnostic to the security policy being used over the air. Clint (JOATMON) Chaplin Wireless Security Advisor Wireless Standards Manager >>> Matt Holdrege 05/17/05 17:26 PM >>> At 01:26 PM 5/17/2005, Pat Calhoun wrote: > > With all due respect to the installed base of WEP-only gear, the=20 > > IETF should absolutely not make any exception in this or any other=20 > > similar case. The legacy installed base has nothing to do with=20 > > future IETF protocols, especially when it weakens security. Just=20 > > because the CAPWAP protocol may be used by these legacy AP's,=20 > > doesn't mean that they have to be forklift upgraded. What it means=20 > > is that they will not fully comply with the security portion of > > the specification. Anyone doing a security audit of such a > > network would reject any WEP-only gear in any case. > > > > Think if we had rejected IPsec because the massive installed base of > > Windows 3.1 intel-386 PC's couldn't comply with it. >Matt, while I understand your concerns here, I don't agree that the=20 >IETF is in a position to tell AP vendors what security schemes they can >and cannot support. In fact, as of today, not supporting WTP would mean >that the vendor would lose their ability for WiFi certification. > > >Pat Calhoun >CTO, Wireless Networking Business Unit >Cisco Systems First of all the IETF tells all vendors of all products what they MUST and=20 MUST NOT support to comply with an RFC. AP vendors are no different from anyone else and AP vendors already support lots of MUST's in other RFC's.=20 Secondly, I don't think the WiFi Alliance has anything like a normative=20 reference to any RFC's right? The WiFi alliance can insert into their=20 documents whatever they want and they can say that "even though the IETF CAPWAP RFC says no to WEP, we will allow it for our certification tests." My concern is the integrity of the IETF and RFC's. We shouldn't stoop to antiquated marketing requirements, especially where security is concerned. _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap ________________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned for computer viruses. _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap ------=_NextPart_000_002C_01C55B91.44FF8870 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Clint, agree 100% with what you are = saying.  However,=20 this also brings
up an interesting problem in the security = requirements=20 themselves of the
CAPWAP protocol being chosen.  If WEP and less = secure=20 encryption methods
are to be allowed for users which I believe they = must,=20 then that opens
up possible attacks on the wired side from within the = wireless domain
since WEP is not secure.  If a proposal for = CAPWAP is=20 susceptible to
wired attacks, it is by this requirement that it is = just as=20 susceptible
to a wireless attack.  The seriousness of a wired = security=20 hole present
in the proposal is the same as that of a wireless = security=20 hole.

So whatever proposal CAPWAP ends up choosing must not have = any=20 security
holes, whether wired or wireless.  I would like to make = sure we=20 don't
trivialize the presence of a hole just because it appears to = only=20 be
on the wired=20 side.

Regards,
 
--
Randy


-----Original=20 Message-----
From: capwap-admin@frascone.com=20 [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] On
Behalf Of Clint = Chaplin
Sent:=20 Tuesday, May 17, 2005 6:17 PM
To: pcalhoun@cisco.com; clancy@cs.umd.edu; capwap@frascone.com;
matt.holdrege@verizon.net
Subject: RE: [Capwap] = security in=20 objectives draft


"antiquated marketing requirements" are not = the only=20 reason for this
position.  Low cost/low power terminals, = especially=20 legacy devices,
currently are deployed in the industry, and need WEP = support=20 in the
infrastructure.

Laptops are not the only = portable/mobile=20 devices to use 802.11, although
it has by far the greatest mindshare = withing=20 various standards bodies in
this space.  Small industrial = handheld=20 terminals are a viable market.

Besides, whatever protocol CAPWAP = settles=20 upon should be completely
agnostic to the security policy being used = over the=20 air.

Clint (JOATMON) Chaplin
Wireless Security = Advisor
Wireless=20 Standards Manager
>>> Matt Holdrege <matt.holdrege@verizon.net> 05/17/05 17:26 PM = >>>
At=20 01:26 PM 5/17/2005, Pat Calhoun wrote:
> > With all due respect = to the=20 installed base of WEP-only gear, the
> > IETF should = absolutely not=20 make any exception in this or any other
> > similar case. The = legacy=20 installed base has nothing to do with
> > future IETF = protocols,=20 especially when it weakens security. Just
> > because the = CAPWAP=20 protocol may be used by these legacy AP's,
> > doesn't mean = that they=20 have to be forklift upgraded. What it means
> > is that they = will not=20 fully comply with the security portion of
> > the = specification. Anyone=20 doing a security audit of such a
> > network would reject any = WEP-only=20 gear in any case.
> >
> > Think if we had rejected = IPsec=20 because the massive installed base of

> > Windows 3.1 = intel-386=20 PC's couldn't comply with it.
>Matt, while I understand your = concerns=20 here, I don't agree that the
>IETF is in a position to tell AP = vendors=20 what security schemes they can

>and cannot support. In fact, = as of=20 today, not supporting WTP would mean

>that the vendor would = lose their=20 ability for WiFi certification.
>
>
>Pat = Calhoun
>CTO,=20 Wireless Networking Business Unit
>Cisco Systems

First of = all the=20 IETF tells all vendors of all products what they MUST
and
MUST = NOT=20 support to comply with an RFC. AP vendors are no different = from

anyone=20 else and AP vendors already support lots of MUST's in other
RFC's.=20
Secondly, I don't think the WiFi Alliance has anything like a = normative=20
reference to any RFC's right? The WiFi alliance can insert into = their=20
documents whatever they want and they can say that "even though the=20 IETF

CAPWAP RFC says no to WEP, we will allow it for our=20 certification
tests."

My concern is the integrity of the IETF = and=20 RFC's. We shouldn't stoop to

antiquated marketing requirements,=20 especially where security=20 is
concerned.


_____________________________________________= __
Capwap=20 mailing list
Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap

___= _____________________________________________________________________
= This=20 email has been scanned for computer=20 viruses.

_______________________________________________
Capwap= =20 mailing list
Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap

 
------=_NextPart_000_002C_01C55B91.44FF8870-- _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Wed May 18 18:37:08 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA00509 for ; Wed, 18 May 2005 18:37:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A6C62062C; Wed, 18 May 2005 18:37:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1058320627; Wed, 18 May 2005 18:37:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 375BC20627 for ; Wed, 18 May 2005 18:36:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from aruba-server.arubanetworks.com (smtp.arubanetworks.com [216.31.249.252]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 156CB2061F for ; Wed, 18 May 2005 18:36:27 -0400 (EDT) x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6603.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [Capwap] security in objectives draft Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] security in objectives draft Thread-Index: AcVbR5vOPJx1eVAmQ02ADOyB6wz8iwAshkaQ From: "Randy Chou" To: "Clint Chaplin" , , , , Cc: "Randy Chou" X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 15:36:26 -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resending as I did not see it appear on the list... Clint, agree 100% with what you are saying. However, this also brings up an interesting problem in the security requirements themselves of the CAPWAP protocol being chosen. If WEP and less secure encryption methods are to be allowed for users which I believe they must, then that opens up possible attacks on the wired side from within the wireless domain since WEP is not secure. If a proposal for CAPWAP is susceptible to wired attacks, it is by this requirement that it is just as susceptible to a wireless attack. The seriousness of a wired security hole present in the proposal is the same as that of a wireless security hole. So whatever proposal CAPWAP ends up choosing must not have any security holes, whether wired or wireless. I would like to make sure we don't Trivialize the presence of a hole just because it appears to only be on the wired side. Regards, =20 -- Randy -----Original Message----- From: capwap-admin@frascone.com [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] On Behalf Of Clint Chaplin Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 6:17 PM To: pcalhoun@cisco.com; clancy@cs.umd.edu; capwap@frascone.com; matt.holdrege@verizon.net Subject: RE: [Capwap] security in objectives draft "antiquated marketing requirements" are not the only reason for this position. Low cost/low power terminals, especially legacy devices, currently are deployed in the industry, and need WEP support in the infrastructure. Laptops are not the only portable/mobile devices to use 802.11, although it has by far the greatest mindshare withing various standards bodies in this space. Small industrial handheld terminals are a viable market. Besides, whatever protocol CAPWAP settles upon should be completely agnostic to the security policy being used over the air. Clint (JOATMON) Chaplin Wireless Security Advisor Wireless Standards Manager >>> Matt Holdrege 05/17/05 17:26 PM >>> At 01:26 PM 5/17/2005, Pat Calhoun wrote: > > With all due respect to the installed base of WEP-only gear, > > the IETF should absolutely not make any exception in this or > > any other similar case. > > The legacy installed base has nothing to do with future IETF > > protocols, especially when it weakens security. Just because > > the CAPWAP protocol may be used by these legacy AP's, doesn't > > mean that they have to be forklift upgraded. What it means is > > that they will not fully comply with the security portion of > > the specification. Anyone doing a security audit of such a > > network would reject any WEP-only gear in any case. > > > > Think if we had rejected IPsec because the massive installed > > base of Windows 3.1 intel-386 PC's couldn't comply with it. >Matt, while I understand your concerns here, I don't agree that >the IETF is in a position to tell AP vendors what security schemes >they can and cannot support. In fact, as of today, not supporting >WTP would mean that the vendor would lose their ability for >WiFi certification. > > >Pat Calhoun >CTO, Wireless Networking Business Unit >Cisco Systems First of all the IETF tells all vendors of all products what they MUST and=20 MUST NOT support to comply with an RFC. AP vendors are no different from anyone else and AP vendors already support lots of MUST's in other RFC's.=20 Secondly, I don't think the WiFi Alliance has anything like a normative=20 reference to any RFC's right? The WiFi alliance can insert into their=20 documents whatever they want and they can say that "even though the IETF CAPWAP RFC says no to WEP, we will allow it for our certification tests." My concern is the integrity of the IETF and RFC's. We shouldn't stoop to antiquated marketing requirements, especially where security is concerned. _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap ________________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned for computer viruses. _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Wed May 18 19:48:08 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA07231 for ; Wed, 18 May 2005 19:48:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0695C20637; Wed, 18 May 2005 19:48:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DB332062A; Wed, 18 May 2005 19:48:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 240E32062A for ; Wed, 18 May 2005 19:47:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp4.centerbeam.com (smtp4.centerbeam.com [63.120.115.248]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2956C2026B for ; Wed, 18 May 2005 19:47:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cba0e2k00.CBA0.centerbeam.com ([64.95.101.25]) by smtp4.centerbeam.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Wed, 18 May 2005 16:48:01 -0700 Received: from CBA0E2K06.CBA0.centerbeam.com ([64.95.101.40]) by cba0e2k00.CBA0.centerbeam.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Wed, 18 May 2005 16:47:23 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [Capwap] security in objectives draft Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] security in objectives draft Thread-Index: AcVbR5vOPJx1eVAmQ02ADOyB6wz8iwAshkaQAAJePHA= From: "Darren Loher" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 May 2005 23:47:23.0430 (UTC) FILETIME=[F0309460:01C55C03] X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 16:47:23 -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This sounds like we should write a BCP draft following the selection of a solution for capwap which document the recommended best practices for configuration and use of the solution. This BCP should point out the security holes created by using WEP and lessor encryption techniques on the WTP <-> STA interface and strongly recommend against usage of those techniques even though they are permitted. -Darren > -----Original Message----- > From: capwap-admin@frascone.com [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] On > Behalf Of Randy Chou > Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 4:36 PM > To: Clint Chaplin; pcalhoun@cisco.com; clancy@cs.umd.edu; > capwap@frascone.com; matt.holdrege@verizon.net > Cc: Randy Chou > Subject: RE: [Capwap] security in objectives draft >=20 > Resending as I did not see it appear on the list... >=20 > Clint, agree 100% with what you are saying. However, this also brings > up an interesting problem in the security requirements themselves of the > CAPWAP protocol being chosen. If WEP and less secure encryption methods > are to be allowed for users which I believe they must, then that opens > up possible attacks on the wired side from within the wireless domain > since WEP is not secure. If a proposal for CAPWAP is susceptible to > wired attacks, it is by this requirement that it is just as susceptible > to a wireless attack. The seriousness of a wired security hole present > in the proposal is the same as that of a wireless security hole. >=20 > So whatever proposal CAPWAP ends up choosing must not have any security > holes, whether wired or wireless. I would like to make sure we don't > Trivialize the presence of a hole just because it appears to only be > on the wired side. >=20 > Regards, >=20 > -- > Randy >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: capwap-admin@frascone.com [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] On > Behalf Of Clint Chaplin > Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 6:17 PM > To: pcalhoun@cisco.com; clancy@cs.umd.edu; capwap@frascone.com; > matt.holdrege@verizon.net > Subject: RE: [Capwap] security in objectives draft >=20 > "antiquated marketing requirements" are not the only reason for this > position. Low cost/low power terminals, especially legacy devices, > currently are deployed in the industry, and need WEP support in the > infrastructure. >=20 > Laptops are not the only portable/mobile devices to use 802.11, although > it has by far the greatest mindshare withing various standards bodies in > this space. Small industrial handheld terminals are a viable market. >=20 > Besides, whatever protocol CAPWAP settles upon should be completely > agnostic to the security policy being used over the air. >=20 > Clint (JOATMON) Chaplin > Wireless Security Advisor > Wireless Standards Manager > >>> Matt Holdrege 05/17/05 17:26 PM >>> > At 01:26 PM 5/17/2005, Pat Calhoun wrote: > > > With all due respect to the installed base of WEP-only gear, > > > the IETF should absolutely not make any exception in this or > > > any other similar case. > > > The legacy installed base has nothing to do with future IETF > > > protocols, especially when it weakens security. Just because > > > the CAPWAP protocol may be used by these legacy AP's, doesn't > > > mean that they have to be forklift upgraded. What it means is > > > that they will not fully comply with the security portion of > > > the specification. Anyone doing a security audit of such a > > > network would reject any WEP-only gear in any case. > > > > > > Think if we had rejected IPsec because the massive installed > > > base of Windows 3.1 intel-386 PC's couldn't comply with it. > >Matt, while I understand your concerns here, I don't agree that > >the IETF is in a position to tell AP vendors what security schemes > >they can and cannot support. In fact, as of today, not supporting > >WTP would mean that the vendor would lose their ability for > >WiFi certification. > > > > > >Pat Calhoun > >CTO, Wireless Networking Business Unit > >Cisco Systems >=20 > First of all the IETF tells all vendors of all products what they MUST > and > MUST NOT support to comply with an RFC. AP vendors are no different from >=20 > anyone else and AP vendors already support lots of MUST's in other > RFC's. > Secondly, I don't think the WiFi Alliance has anything like a normative > reference to any RFC's right? The WiFi alliance can insert into their > documents whatever they want and they can say that "even though the IETF >=20 > CAPWAP RFC says no to WEP, we will allow it for our certification > tests." >=20 > My concern is the integrity of the IETF and RFC's. We shouldn't stoop to >=20 > antiquated marketing requirements, especially where security is > concerned. >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Capwap mailing list > Capwap@frascone.com > http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap >=20 > ________________________________________________________________________ > This email has been scanned for computer viruses. >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Capwap mailing list > Capwap@frascone.com > http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Capwap mailing list > Capwap@frascone.com > http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Thu May 19 03:18:11 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA28868 for ; Thu, 19 May 2005 03:18:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C231020485; Thu, 19 May 2005 03:18:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2688B20448; Thu, 19 May 2005 03:18:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5300A20448 for ; Thu, 19 May 2005 03:17:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from syd-iport-1.cisco.com (syd-iport-1.cisco.com [64.104.193.196]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7E5420416 for ; Thu, 19 May 2005 03:17:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from syd-core-1.cisco.com (64.104.193.198) by syd-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 19 May 2005 17:33:21 +1000 Received: from pacalhouwxp (syd-vpn-client-254-169.cisco.com [10.66.254.169]) by syd-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j4J7Gnet000523; Thu, 19 May 2005 17:16:55 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <200505190716.j4J7Gnet000523@syd-core-1.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun" To: "'Charles Clancy'" , Subject: RE: [Capwap] proposed security changes to objectives draft MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Thread-Index: AcVbsGjE5GilNZk8Q1uggJGdVBEL8AAkXfDQ X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 00:17:11 -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I like the text proposed by Charles, with one comment: > Consequently, CAPWAP MUST disclaim the use of WEP by normatively recommending that WEP not be used in conjunction with > CAPWAP. At the beginning of the CAPWAP initiative, we clearly stated that the working group would not require changes to the 802.11 protocol. There are many products today that support WEP, and the architecture of the products does not make WEP more or less secure. WEP is part of the 802.11 protocol, and it's required for WFA certification. WEP is just a plain ol' bad idea, but it's there and there are many applications that use it. Forcing CAPWAP products to not support WEP will cause enterprise customers that may be securing their sensitive data with a strong crypto, but using WEP for their less sensitive data (and in some cases they just don't have a choice), to go with non CAPWAP products. So I realize that I'm repeating myself here, but I have to formally object to this sentence. I'm ok with a SHOULD instead of a MUST. I'm ok with adding a statement stating that products must warn people that using WEP is bad and not secure. Pat Calhoun CTO, Wireless Networking Business Unit Cisco Systems > -----Original Message----- > From: capwap-admin@frascone.com > [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] On Behalf Of Charles Clancy > Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 6:45 AM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] proposed security changes to objectives draft > > Comments? Suggestions? > > --- > > 5.1.8 CAPWAP Protocol Security > > --- > > OLD TEXT: > > The CAPWAP protocol must first provide for the > participating entities > - WLAN controller and WTPs - to be mutually > authenticated. This is > to ensure that rogue WTPs do not breach legitimate WLAN > systems. For > example, WTPs may need to regularly renew their > authentication state > with the WLAN controller. > > NEW TEXT: > > The CAPWAP protocol must first provide for the > participating entities > - WLAN controller and WTPs - to be explicity mutually > authenticated. > If authentication is performed via an authenticated key exchange, > future knowledge of derived keys is not sufficient for > authentication. > This is to ensure that rogue WTPs do not breach legitimate WLAN > systems. For example, WTPs may need to regularly renew their > authentication state with the WLAN controller. > > Any session keys used between the AC and WTP MUST be > mutually drived > using entropy contributed by both parties. This ensures > that no one > party has control over the resulting session keys. > > --- > > OLD TEXT: > > While mutual authentication is necessary for CAPWAP, the protocol > should not prevent the use of asymmetric, non-mutual > authentication. > The security considerations of such asymmetric authentication are > described in the Security Considerations section. > > NEW TEXT: > > CAPWAP should not prevent the use of asymmetric > authentication. The > security considerations of such asymmetric authentication are > described in the Security Considerations section. > > --- > > 5.1.9 System-wide Security > > --- > > NEW TEXT: > > While CAPWAP does not govern the wireless interface, the > security used > on that link will affect overall system security. Consequently, > CAPWAP MUST disclaim the use of WEP by normatively > recommending that > WEP not be used in conjunction with CAPWAP. > > CAPWAP SHOULD authenticate handoffs between WTPs. When split-MAC > CAPWAP is used in conjunction with 802.11i, this > authentication happens > implicitly via the 4-Way Handshake. With local-MAC > CAPWAP, this will > involve the derivation of a new PMK, either through an EAP > reauthentication, or some other mechanism. > > > [ t. charles clancy ]--[ tcc@umd.edu ]--[ > www.cs.umd.edu/~clancy ] [ computer science ]-----[ > university of maryland | college park ] > _______________________________________________ > Capwap mailing list > Capwap@frascone.com > http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From tuition@doramail.com Thu May 19 06:33:49 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA16050; Thu, 19 May 2005 06:33:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [203.255.134.121] (helo=132.151.6.1) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DYicm-0004fz-4A; Thu, 19 May 2005 06:51:33 -0400 Received: from conscription-jcoppens.com (EHLO preference.jcoppens.com) by acidic.jcoppens.com with SMTP; Thu, 19 May 2005 14:29:02 +0300 Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 14:26:02 +0300 From: "Kyle Mclean" To: bmwg@ietf.org Cc: bmwg-admin@ietf.org, bmwg-archive@ietf.org, bofchairs@ietf.org, bounces-ietf@ietf.org, bpana@ietf.org, brenton.daniels@ietf.org, bridge-mib@ietf.org, bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org, business@ietf.org, calsch@ietf.org, cancer@ietf.org, capwap-archive@ietf.org, ccips@ietf.org, cclark@ietf.org Subject: Your account #29M7474 Message-ID: X-SpamTest-Info: Profile: SysLog X-SpamTest-Status: Not detected X-SpamTest-Version: SMTP-Filter Version 2.0.0 [089], SpamtestISP/Release X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.41 (Entity 5.404) X-Spam-Score: 4.7 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate.= You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.h1gh3r.com/sign.asp Best Regards, Jacob Bowden to be remov(ed: http://www.h1gh3r.com/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From grdetil@emailaccount.com Thu May 19 07:18:57 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA22779; Thu, 19 May 2005 07:18:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from p54bec68f.dip.t-dialin.net ([84.190.198.143]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DYjKO-00060A-0v; Thu, 19 May 2005 07:36:41 -0400 Received: from playboy.postmortem-brimstone.com (HELO actinometer.com 66.7.117.36) by dog.com with EMQP; Thu, 19 May 2005 11:13:50 -0100 Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 11:15:50 -0100 From: "Kris Webb" Message-Id: To: bofchairs@ietf.org Cc: bounces-ietf@ietf.org, bpana@ietf.org, brenton.daniels@ietf.org, bridge-mib@ietf.org, bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org, business@ietf.org, calsch@ietf.org, cancer@ietf.org, capwap-archive@ietf.org, ccips@ietf.org, cclark@ietf.org Subject: Pre-approved Application #NVQCWI196 X-Mailer: CompuServe 7.0 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.h1gh3r.com/sign.asp Best Regards, Stewart Moses to be remov(ed: http://www.h1gh3r.com/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From capwap-admin@frascone.com Thu May 19 08:06:10 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA26953 for ; Thu, 19 May 2005 08:06:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEF7F204CC; Thu, 19 May 2005 08:06:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 311C0204C0; Thu, 19 May 2005 08:06:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD3AF204C0 for ; Thu, 19 May 2005 08:05:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from carrierpigeon.cs.umd.edu (carrierpigeon.cs.umd.edu [128.8.129.58]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B58BB204B9 for ; Thu, 19 May 2005 08:05:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ismene (ismene.cs.umd.edu [128.8.126.62]) by carrierpigeon.cs.umd.edu (8.12.10/8.12.5) with ESMTP id j4JBthtS003811 for ; Thu, 19 May 2005 07:55:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Charles Clancy X-X-Sender: clancy@ismene To: capwap@frascone.com Subject: RE: [Capwap] proposed security changes to objectives draft In-Reply-To: <200505190716.j4J7Gnet000523@syd-core-1.cisco.com> Message-ID: References: <200505190716.j4J7Gnet000523@syd-core-1.cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 07:51:57 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) On Thu, 19 May 2005, Pat Calhoun wrote: >> Consequently, CAPWAP MUST disclaim the use of WEP by normatively >> recommending that WEP not be used in conjunction with >> CAPWAP. > > I'm ok with a SHOULD instead of a MUST. ... okay ... > I'm ok with adding a statement stating that products must warn people > that using WEP is bad and not secure. Isn't that exactly what the above statement requires of CAPWAP drafts? The SHOULD/MUST argument is about inclusion in the proposed protocol, not support for WEP. If you're okay with including a disclaimer, then why SHOULD instead of MUST? [ t. charles clancy ]--[ tcc@umd.edu ]--[ www.cs.umd.edu/~clancy ] [ computer science ]-----[ university of maryland | college park ] _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From madewell@emailaccount.com Thu May 19 09:18:37 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA03433; Thu, 19 May 2005 09:18:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from a213-22-4-129.netcabo.pt ([213.22.4.129]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DYlCG-0001Pu-Cj; Thu, 19 May 2005 09:36:23 -0400 Authentication-Results: pathogenic.es from=premium.ruffian.es; domainkeys=neutral (no sig) X-Originating-IP: [20.32.8.159] Received: from premium.aqueduct.es (EHLO premium.decipher.es) by premium.headboard.es with SMTP; Thu, 19 May 2005 20:17:57 +0600 Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 07:18:57 -0700 From: "Ladonna Haas" To: brenton.daniels@ietf.org Cc: bridge-mib@ietf.org, bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org, business@ietf.org, calsch@ietf.org, cancer@ietf.org, capwap-archive@ietf.org, ccips@ietf.org, cclark@ietf.org, cdi-archive@ietf.org, cdir-admin@ietf.org, cfrg@ietf.org, cfrg-admin@ietf.org Subject: Become one of the low rates Message-ID: <119141.5572.madewell@emailaccount.com> X-Mailer: Kana Connect 6 X-Spam-Score: 5.4 (+++++) X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Scan-Signature: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3 Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.h1gh3r.com/sign.asp Best Regards, Lazaro Bentley to be remov(ed: http://www.h1gh3r.com/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From capwap-admin@frascone.com Thu May 19 11:43:15 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA17415 for ; Thu, 19 May 2005 11:43:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB3012053D; Thu, 19 May 2005 11:43:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 014DF20518; Thu, 19 May 2005 11:43:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBF7620518 for ; Thu, 19 May 2005 11:42:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.colubris.com (mail.colubris.com [206.162.167.228]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD0002050D for ; Thu, 19 May 2005 11:42:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.colubris.com ([192.168.32.14]) by mail.colubris.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Thu, 19 May 2005 11:42:17 -0400 Received: from email2.colubris.com ([192.168.32.21]) by mail.colubris.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Thu, 19 May 2005 11:42:14 -0400 Received: from [10.0.0.20] ([10.0.0.20]) by email2.colubris.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Thu, 19 May 2005 11:42:14 -0400 Message-ID: <428CB351.5060600@colubris.com> From: Oleg Volinsky User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: capwap@frascone.com, Charles Clancy Cc: ovolinsky@colubris.com Subject: Re: [Capwap] proposed security changes to objectives draft References: <20050518160004.7997.73859.Mailman@xavier> In-Reply-To: <20050518160004.7997.73859.Mailman@xavier> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 May 2005 15:42:14.0674 (UTC) FILETIME=[546EA720:01C55C89] X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 11:40:01 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Charles, I do not see why split-mac and local-mac CAPWAP should have different requirements for handoff authentication between WTPs. I think it puts more stringent requirements on Local-MAC implementations vs. split-MAC. I would recommend not impose architectural specific limitation in this case. Oleg >--__--__-- > >Message: 1 >Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 09:44:34 -0400 (EDT) >From: Charles Clancy >To: capwap@frascone.com >Subject: [Capwap] proposed security changes to objectives draft > >Comments? Suggestions? > >--- > >5.1.8 CAPWAP Protocol Security > >--- > >OLD TEXT: > > The CAPWAP protocol must first provide for the participating entities > - WLAN controller and WTPs - to be mutually authenticated. This is > to ensure that rogue WTPs do not breach legitimate WLAN systems. For > example, WTPs may need to regularly renew their authentication state > with the WLAN controller. > >NEW TEXT: > > The CAPWAP protocol must first provide for the participating entities > - WLAN controller and WTPs - to be explicity mutually authenticated. > If authentication is performed via an authenticated key exchange, > future knowledge of derived keys is not sufficient for authentication. > This is to ensure that rogue WTPs do not breach legitimate WLAN > systems. For example, WTPs may need to regularly renew their > authentication state with the WLAN controller. > > Any session keys used between the AC and WTP MUST be mutually drived > using entropy contributed by both parties. This ensures that no one > party has control over the resulting session keys. > >--- > >OLD TEXT: > > While mutual authentication is necessary for CAPWAP, the protocol > should not prevent the use of asymmetric, non-mutual authentication. > The security considerations of such asymmetric authentication are > described in the Security Considerations section. > >NEW TEXT: > > CAPWAP should not prevent the use of asymmetric authentication. The > security considerations of such asymmetric authentication are > described in the Security Considerations section. > >--- > >5.1.9 System-wide Security > >--- > >NEW TEXT: > > While CAPWAP does not govern the wireless interface, the security used > on that link will affect overall system security. Consequently, > CAPWAP MUST disclaim the use of WEP by normatively recommending that > WEP not be used in conjunction with CAPWAP. > > CAPWAP SHOULD authenticate handoffs between WTPs. When split-MAC > CAPWAP is used in conjunction with 802.11i, this authentication happens > implicitly via the 4-Way Handshake. With local-MAC CAPWAP, this will > involve the derivation of a new PMK, either through an EAP > reauthentication, or some other mechanism. > > >[ t. charles clancy ]--[ tcc@umd.edu ]--[ www.cs.umd.edu/~clancy ] >[ computer science ]-----[ university of maryland | college park ] > >--__--__-- > > _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Thu May 19 12:46:10 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA23589 for ; Thu, 19 May 2005 12:46:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 153212054B; Thu, 19 May 2005 12:46:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 283D520529; Thu, 19 May 2005 12:46:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3568520529 for ; Thu, 19 May 2005 12:45:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from carrierpigeon.cs.umd.edu (carrierpigeon.cs.umd.edu [128.8.129.58]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C52782050D for ; Thu, 19 May 2005 12:45:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ismene (ismene.cs.umd.edu [128.8.126.62]) by carrierpigeon.cs.umd.edu (8.12.10/8.12.5) with ESMTP id j4JGaftS005802; Thu, 19 May 2005 12:36:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Charles Clancy X-X-Sender: clancy@ismene To: Oleg Volinsky Cc: capwap@frascone.com Subject: Re: [Capwap] proposed security changes to objectives draft In-Reply-To: <428CB351.5060600@colubris.com> Message-ID: References: <20050518160004.7997.73859.Mailman@xavier> <428CB351.5060600@colubris.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 12:32:55 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Perhaps something more generic would be appropriate? CAPWAP SHOULD authenticate handoffs between WTPs. When CAPWAP is used in a dynamically-keyed environment, STAs MUST derive new transport keys upon association to a new WTP. [ t. charles clancy ]--[ tcc@umd.edu ]--[ www.cs.umd.edu/~clancy ] [ computer science ]-----[ university of maryland | college park ] On Thu, 19 May 2005, Oleg Volinsky wrote: > Charles, > I do not see why split-mac and local-mac CAPWAP should have different > requirements for handoff authentication between WTPs. I think it puts more > stringent requirements on Local-MAC implementations vs. split-MAC. I would > recommend not impose architectural specific limitation in this case. > Oleg > >> --__--__-- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 09:44:34 -0400 (EDT) >> From: Charles Clancy >> To: capwap@frascone.com >> Subject: [Capwap] proposed security changes to objectives draft >> >> Comments? Suggestions? >> >> --- >> >> 5.1.8 CAPWAP Protocol Security >> >> --- >> >> OLD TEXT: >> >> The CAPWAP protocol must first provide for the participating entities >> - WLAN controller and WTPs - to be mutually authenticated. This is >> to ensure that rogue WTPs do not breach legitimate WLAN systems. For >> example, WTPs may need to regularly renew their authentication state >> with the WLAN controller. >> >> NEW TEXT: >> >> The CAPWAP protocol must first provide for the participating entities >> - WLAN controller and WTPs - to be explicity mutually authenticated. >> If authentication is performed via an authenticated key exchange, >> future knowledge of derived keys is not sufficient for authentication. >> This is to ensure that rogue WTPs do not breach legitimate WLAN >> systems. For example, WTPs may need to regularly renew their >> authentication state with the WLAN controller. >> >> Any session keys used between the AC and WTP MUST be mutually drived >> using entropy contributed by both parties. This ensures that no one >> party has control over the resulting session keys. >> >> --- >> >> OLD TEXT: >> >> While mutual authentication is necessary for CAPWAP, the protocol >> should not prevent the use of asymmetric, non-mutual authentication. >> The security considerations of such asymmetric authentication are >> described in the Security Considerations section. >> >> NEW TEXT: >> >> CAPWAP should not prevent the use of asymmetric authentication. The >> security considerations of such asymmetric authentication are >> described in the Security Considerations section. >> >> --- >> >> 5.1.9 System-wide Security >> >> --- >> >> NEW TEXT: >> >> While CAPWAP does not govern the wireless interface, the security used >> on that link will affect overall system security. Consequently, >> CAPWAP MUST disclaim the use of WEP by normatively recommending that >> WEP not be used in conjunction with CAPWAP. >> >> CAPWAP SHOULD authenticate handoffs between WTPs. When split-MAC >> CAPWAP is used in conjunction with 802.11i, this authentication happens >> implicitly via the 4-Way Handshake. With local-MAC CAPWAP, this will >> involve the derivation of a new PMK, either through an EAP >> reauthentication, or some other mechanism. >> >> >> [ t. charles clancy ]--[ tcc@umd.edu ]--[ www.cs.umd.edu/~clancy ] >> [ computer science ]-----[ university of maryland | college park ] >> >> --__--__-- >> > _______________________________________________ > Capwap mailing list > Capwap@frascone.com > http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From capwap-admin@frascone.com Thu May 19 16:44:09 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA29420 for ; Thu, 19 May 2005 16:44:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27CA92050F; Thu, 19 May 2005 16:44:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1E6920442; Thu, 19 May 2005 16:44:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CAE820442 for ; Thu, 19 May 2005 16:43:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from syd-iport-1.cisco.com (syd-iport-1.cisco.com [64.104.193.196]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B5DF20373 for ; Thu, 19 May 2005 16:43:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from syd-core-1.cisco.com (64.104.193.198) by syd-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 May 2005 06:59:30 +1000 Received: from pacalhouwxp (syd-vpn-client-254-67.cisco.com [10.66.254.67]) by syd-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j4JKh6et004903; Fri, 20 May 2005 06:43:07 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <200505192043.j4JKh6et004903@syd-core-1.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun" To: "'Charles Clancy'" , Subject: RE: [Capwap] proposed security changes to objectives draft MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Thread-Index: AcVca0NIapVNMM2CRwqJMXjPq5LZPQASBd8g In-Reply-To: X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 13:43:36 -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I stand corrected. I now realize the text said disclaim, while somehow I had read disallow. My apologies. Pat Calhoun CTO, Wireless Networking Business Unit Cisco Systems > -----Original Message----- > From: capwap-admin@frascone.com > [mailto:capwap-admin@frascone.com] On Behalf Of Charles Clancy > Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 4:52 AM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: RE: [Capwap] proposed security changes to objectives draft > > On Thu, 19 May 2005, Pat Calhoun wrote: > > >> Consequently, CAPWAP MUST disclaim the use of WEP by normatively > >> recommending that WEP not be used in conjunction with CAPWAP. > > > > I'm ok with a SHOULD instead of a MUST. > > ... okay ... > > > I'm ok with adding a statement stating that products must > warn people > > that using WEP is bad and not secure. > > Isn't that exactly what the above statement requires of > CAPWAP drafts? > The SHOULD/MUST argument is about inclusion in the proposed > protocol, not support for WEP. If you're okay with including > a disclaimer, then why SHOULD instead of MUST? > > [ t. charles clancy ]--[ tcc@umd.edu ]--[ > www.cs.umd.edu/~clancy ] [ computer science ]-----[ > university of maryland | college park ] > _______________________________________________ > Capwap mailing list > Capwap@frascone.com > http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From claudia@emailaccount.com Fri May 20 13:38:18 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA13968; Fri, 20 May 2005 13:38:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from host50.foretec.com ([65.246.255.50] helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DZBjO-0000eW-Qx; Fri, 20 May 2005 13:56:19 -0400 Received: from c-24-128-181-139.hsd1.nh.comcast.net ([24.128.181.139]) by mx2.foretec.com with smtp (Exim 4.24) id 1DZBRw-0007gL-G3; Fri, 20 May 2005 13:38:18 -0400 Received: from chinch.commission-ironstone.com (HELO synergy.com 66.0.183.97) by demise.com with EMQP; Fri, 20 May 2005 12:33:40 -0600 Date: Sat, 21 May 2005 00:35:40 +0600 From: "Greta Collins" Message-Id: To: brenton.daniels@ietf.org Cc: bridge-mib@ietf.org, bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org, business@ietf.org, calsch@ietf.org, cancer@ietf.org, capwap-archive@ietf.org, ccips@ietf.org, cclark@ietf.org Subject: High rates? Not with us! low fixed rate X-Mailer: CompuServe 7.0 X-Spam-Score: 13.5 (+++++++++++++) X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.h1gh3r.com/sign.asp Best Regards, Krystal Prescott to be remov(ed: http://www.h1gh3r.com/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From cookers@fadmail.com Fri May 20 13:38:32 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA14025; Fri, 20 May 2005 13:38:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from host50.foretec.com ([65.246.255.50] helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DZBjb-0000f2-SE; Fri, 20 May 2005 13:56:33 -0400 Received: from i222023.upc-i.chello.nl ([62.195.222.23]) by mx2.foretec.com with smtp (Exim 4.24) id 1DZBS6-0007gA-26; Fri, 20 May 2005 13:38:30 -0400 Delivered-To: backtrack@cycle.dreamhost.com Received: from bugeyed.dreamhost.com by fare.dreamhost.com (Pingofix) with ESMTP id 6CC2A22D9B for ; Fri, 20 May 2005 13:39:20 -0500 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 17:35:20 -0100 From: "Serena Goss" To: Subject: Save hundreds every month on low rates X-Mailer: Mailman v2.0.4 X-SpamTest-Info: Profile: Formal (167/041165) X-SpamTest-Info: Profile: Detect Hard No RBL (4/030598) X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3 Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.h1gh3r.com/sign.asp Best Regards, Kelli Caldwell to be remov(ed: http://www.h1gh3r.com/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From capwap-admin@frascone.com Fri May 20 15:24:10 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA29314 for ; Fri, 20 May 2005 15:24:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F70120551; Fri, 20 May 2005 15:24:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9C6720547; Fri, 20 May 2005 15:24:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D550D20547 for ; Fri, 20 May 2005 15:23:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from carrierpigeon.cs.umd.edu (carrierpigeon.cs.umd.edu [128.8.129.58]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E300320540 for ; Fri, 20 May 2005 15:23:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ismene (ismene.cs.umd.edu [128.8.126.62]) by carrierpigeon.cs.umd.edu (8.12.10/8.12.5) with ESMTP id j4KJNDtS015348; Fri, 20 May 2005 15:23:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Charles Clancy X-X-Sender: clancy@ismene To: capwap@frascone.com Cc: sgovindan@psl.com.sg Subject: RE: [Capwap] proposed security changes to objectives draft In-Reply-To: <200505192043.j4JKh6et004903@syd-core-1.cisco.com> Message-ID: References: <200505192043.j4JKh6et004903@syd-core-1.cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 15:19:26 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Alright, we seemed to have reached a WG consensus on the security changes to the objectives draft. Below is an updated version of my original proposal that hopefully takes into account everyones concerns. Provided there are no objections, can the I-D.ietf-capwap-objectives editors update the draft as follows: --- 5.1.8 CAPWAP Protocol Security --- OLD TEXT: The CAPWAP protocol must first provide for the participating entities - WLAN controller and WTPs - to be mutually authenticated. This is to ensure that rogue WTPs do not breach legitimate WLAN systems. For example, WTPs may need to regularly renew their authentication state with the WLAN controller. NEW TEXT: The CAPWAP protocol must first provide for the participating entities - ACs and WTPs - to be explicity mutually authenticated. If authentication is performed via an authenticated key exchange, future knowledge of derived keys is not sufficient for authentication. This is to ensure that rogue WTPs do not breach legitimate WLAN systems. For example, WTPs may need to regularly renew their authentication state with the WLAN controller. Any session keys used between the AC and WTP MUST be mutually drived using entropy contributed by both parties. This ensures that no one party has control over the resulting session keys. --- OLD TEXT: While mutual authentication is necessary for CAPWAP, the protocol should not prevent the use of asymmetric, non-mutual authentication. The security considerations of such asymmetric authentication are described in the Security Considerations section. NEW TEXT: CAPWAP should not prevent the use of asymmetric authentication. The security considerations of such asymmetric authentication are described in the Security Considerations section. --- 5.1.9 System-wide Security --- NEW TEXT: While CAPWAP does not govern the wireless interface, the security used on that link will affect overall system security. Although it is not possible within the CAPWAP protocol to establish normative constraints on wireless interface security for this reason, it is nevertheless important that the CAPWAP specification contain clear guidelines to avoid confusion or mistaken assumptions in deployment of CAPWAP. Consequently, the CAPWAP specification MUST recommend that WEP not be used on the wireless interface, and the specification MUST clearly indicate that the strong security design of CAPWAP will not compensate for inadequate or easily compromised security on the wireless interface. CAPWAP SHOULD authenticate handoffs between WTPs. When CAPWAP is used in a dynamically-keyed environment, STAs MUST derive new transport keys upon association to a new WTP. [ t. charles clancy ]--[ tcc@umd.edu ]--[ www.cs.umd.edu/~clancy ] [ computer science ]-----[ university of maryland | college park ] _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From gomez@didamail.com Sat May 21 14:53:00 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA14180; Sat, 21 May 2005 14:52:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from host50.foretec.com ([65.246.255.50] helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DZZNR-0004jR-I0; Sat, 21 May 2005 15:11:14 -0400 Received: from pcp03677695pcs.pocoht01.va.comcast.net ([68.57.57.66]) by mx2.foretec.com with smtp (Exim 4.24) id 1DZZ5h-0006ev-Ub; Sat, 21 May 2005 14:52:55 -0400 Received: from dart-jcoppens.com (EHLO circle.jcoppens.com) by slap.jcoppens.com with SMTP; Sat, 21 May 2005 15:44:31 -0400 Date: Sat, 21 May 2005 12:40:31 -0700 From: "Carl Murillo" To: calsch@ietf.org Cc: cancer@ietf.org, capwap-archive@ietf.org, ccips@ietf.org, cclark@ietf.org, cdi-archive@ietf.org, cdir-admin@ietf.org, cfrg@ietf.org, cfrg-admin@ietf.org Subject: Notification: We offer low rates Message-ID: X-SpamTest-Info: Profile: SysLog X-SpamTest-Status: Not detected X-SpamTest-Version: SMTP-Filter Version 2.0.0 [941], SpamtestISP/Release X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.41 (Entity 5.404) X-Spam-Score: 5.8 (+++++) X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate.= You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.h1gh3r.com/sign.asp Best Regards, Bonnie Sharp to be remov(ed: http://www.h1gh3r.com/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From lundsten@yebox.com Mon May 23 05:31:54 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA07686; Mon, 23 May 2005 05:31:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [218.59.150.4] (helo=132.151.6.1) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Da9Zp-0000N8-9S; Mon, 23 May 2005 05:50:29 -0400 Delivered-To: spigot@taxonomy.dreamhost.com Received: from automotive.dreamhost.com by candy.dreamhost.com (Pingofix) with ESMTP id 4CC1A31D5B for ; Mon, 23 May 2005 15:33:08 +0500 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 11:29:08 +0100 From: "Tabatha Donahue" To: Subject: Lowest rate approval X-Mailer: Mailman v2.0.5 X-SpamTest-Info: Profile: Formal (167/041155) X-SpamTest-Info: Profile: Detect Hard No RBL (4/030552) X-Spam-Score: 5.7 (+++++) X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Scan-Signature: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3 Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.j0ys.net/sign.asp Best Regards, Lavonne Mccoy to be remov(ed: http://www.j0ys.net/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From anjib@fadmail.com Mon May 23 14:14:22 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA21756; Mon, 23 May 2005 14:14:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from catv-50637968.catv.broadband.hu ([80.99.121.104]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DaHjX-0006ks-6U; Mon, 23 May 2005 14:33:00 -0400 Received: from shad.alphabetic-reagan.com (HELO dice.com 66.9.132.88) by baggy.com with EMQP; Mon, 23 May 2005 23:04:35 +0400 Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 14:05:35 -0500 From: "Josue Masters" Message-Id: To: bpana@ietf.org Cc: brenton.daniels@ietf.org, bridge-mib@ietf.org, bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org, business@ietf.org, calsch@ietf.org, cancer@ietf.org, capwap-archive@ietf.org, ccips@ietf.org, cclark@ietf.org Subject: Need a low mortage rate? X-Mailer: CompuServe 7.0 X-Spam-Score: 12.0 (++++++++++++) X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Scan-Signature: 0bc60ec82efc80c84b8d02f4b0e4de22 Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate.= You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.j0ys.net/sign.asp Best Regards, Wilma Jacobsen to be remov(ed: http://www.j0ys.net/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From capwap-admin@frascone.com Tue May 24 14:54:10 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA00771 for ; Tue, 24 May 2005 14:54:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22ACB20546; Tue, 24 May 2005 14:54:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9886A2051E; Tue, 24 May 2005 14:54:06 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96CB02051E for ; Tue, 24 May 2005 14:53:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from tiere.net.avaya.com (tiere.net.avaya.com [198.152.12.100]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDA95202C0 for ; Tue, 24 May 2005 14:53:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from tiere.net.avaya.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tiere.net.avaya.com (Switch-3.1.2/Switch-3.1.0) with ESMTP id j4OIpTdR014189 for ; Tue, 24 May 2005 14:51:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cof110avexu1.global.avaya.com (h135-9-6-16.avaya.com [135.9.6.16]) by tiere.net.avaya.com (Switch-3.1.2/Switch-3.1.0) with ESMTP id j4OIpRdR014135 for ; Tue, 24 May 2005 14:51:27 -0400 (EDT) x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6603.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C56091.8E6C8835" Message-ID: Thread-Topic: IEEE Review of Objectives draft. Thread-Index: AcVgkeDocn31mZqpRuaY5mvhMyr++Q== X-Priority: 1 Priority: Urgent Importance: high From: "Mani, Mahalingam (Mahalingam)" To: X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Subject: [Capwap] IEEE Review of Objectives draft. Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 12:51:12 -0600 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C56091.8E6C8835 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable All: =20 The IEEE 802.11 and related wireless WG's met for interim sessions last week (15-20 May 2005) at Cairns, Australia. =20 The IEEE 802.11 WG Chair's AP Functions AdHoc Committee (APF AHC), headed by Dorothy Stanley, had started the review on draft-ietf-capwap-objectives-02 soon after its announcement and have gone through a thorough and systematic review of the draft. =20 The review comments and letter describing the review conclusions are included in the document which is now posted in the webpage. The document link (http://www.capwap.org/) is available on the main page as EEE Review of Objectives(-02) draft . =20 Some CAPWAP WG participants (with access to IEEE 802.11 documents) may have already noted this in the IEEE website (http://www.802wirelessworld.com). =20 We thank IEEE 802.11 WG chair for facilitating the APF AHC review and Dorothy Stanley and the APF AHC she chairs for the diligent critical review and thorough comments. =20 The WG and authors please take this review into consideration. =20 [Should there be difficulty reading the word document do let us know]. =20 Regards, -Chairs =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C56091.8E6C8835 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

All:

 

The IEEE 802.11 and related wireless WG’s met = for interim sessions last week (15-20 May 2005) at Cairns, Australia.

 

The IEEE 802.11 WG Chair’s AP Functions AdHoc = Committee (APF AHC), headed by Dorothy Stanley, had started the review on draft-ietf-capwap-objectives-02 soon after its announcement  and have = gone through a thorough and systematic review of the draft.

 

The review comments and letter describing the review conclusions are included in the document which is now posted in = the  webpage. The = document link (http://www.capwap.org/) is available on the main page as EEE Review of Objectives(-02) draft.

 

Some CAPWAP WG participants (with access to IEEE = 802.11 documents) may have already noted this in the IEEE website (http://www.802wirelessworld.com).

 

We thank IEEE 802.11 WG chair for facilitating the = APF AHC review and Dorothy Stanley and the APF AHC she chairs for = the diligent critical review = and thorough comments.

 

The WG and authors please take this review into consideration.

 

[Should there be difficulty reading the word document = do let us know].

 

Regards,

-Chairs

 

------_=_NextPart_001_01C56091.8E6C8835-- _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From legen@didamail.com Tue May 24 16:23:23 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA21365; Tue, 24 May 2005 16:23:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 12.199.98-84.rev.gaoland.net ([84.98.199.12]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DagEA-0007QP-Mf; Tue, 24 May 2005 16:42:16 -0400 Authentication-Results: siam.es from=premium.winter.es; domainkeys=neutral (no sig) X-Originating-IP: [168.14.153.198] Received: from premium.northward.es (EHLO premium.avon.es) by premium.coney.es with SMTP; Tue, 24 May 2005 15:14:04 -0600 Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 02:16:04 +0500 From: "Chandra Aguilar" To: brenton.daniels@ietf.org Cc: bridge-mib@ietf.org, bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org, business@ietf.org, calsch@ietf.org, cancer@ietf.org, capwap-archive@ietf.org, ccips@ietf.org, cclark@ietf.org, cdi-archive@ietf.org, cdir-admin@ietf.org, cfrg@ietf.org, cfrg-admin@ietf.org, cfrg-archive@ietf.org, cfrg-bounces@ietf.org, cfrg-web-archive@ietf.org Subject: Need a low mortage rate? Message-ID: <118441.6204.legen@didamail.com> X-Mailer: Kana Connect 6 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3 Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.j0ys.net/sign.asp Best Regards, Liz Boyle to be remov(ed: http://www.j0ys.net/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From capwap-admin@frascone.com Tue May 24 20:17:10 2005 Received: from mail.frascone.com (postfix@frascone.com [204.49.99.9]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA08767 for ; Tue, 24 May 2005 20:17:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFE9E20353; Tue, 24 May 2005 20:17:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xavier (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7865202CA; Tue, 24 May 2005 20:17:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: capwap@frascone.com Delivered-To: capwap@frascone.com Received: from localhost (xavier [127.0.0.1]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F7DF202CA for ; Tue, 24 May 2005 20:16:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp107.mail.sc5.yahoo.com (smtp107.mail.sc5.yahoo.com [66.163.169.227]) by mail.frascone.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 3070B202B7 for ; Tue, 24 May 2005 20:16:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 52408 invoked from network); 25 May 2005 00:16:33 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:User-Agent:X-Accept-Language:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=K3NwMx5oUPWIT9v+MdGl6bsDrWwxcRGPzBM3K/OjlgxAWagSL3MLo3PBObBpSSwg7Rk4pPXalenaSIm8lUPaZhZoCR6JYAhHeVKEZI2MvW6lit0IsUwkEUGdiK+morbpkPD4OeldMHtoTsRSZBX4n43waj9o7Z3Y1W3WgeWwV8Y= ; Received: from unknown (HELO yahoo.com) (behcetsarikaya@24.71.246.198 with plain) by smtp107.mail.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 May 2005 00:16:33 -0000 Message-ID: <4293C3E1.8090405@yahoo.com> From: Behcet Sarikaya Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: capwap@frascone.com References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Subject: [Capwap] draft-sarikaya-capwap-capwaphp-00 Sender: capwap-admin@frascone.com Errors-To: capwap-admin@frascone.com X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 17:16:33 -0700 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12 (frascone.com) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear all, We have submitted a draft called draft-sarikaya-capwap-capwaphp-00 entitled CAPWAP Handover Protocol (CAPWAPHP) until it gets to IETF draft repositories, the draft can be accessed from: http://web.unbc.ca/~sarikaya/publications/I-Ds/draft-sarikaya-capwap-capwaphp-00.txt after a couple of days, it should be accessed from: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-sarikaya-capwap-capwaphp-00.txt The abstract of the draft follows: This document describes the Control And Provisioning of Wireless Access Points (CAPWAP) Handover Protocol (CAPWAPHP) which is a protocol allowing the access controller of CAPWAP Working Group architecture to anchor and manage 802.11 handovers of the stations between a collection of wireless Access Points. The protocol, like IEEE's IAPP aims to ensure that a station is connected to a single access point and provides an efficient context transfer mechanism during handover using neighbor graphs. CAPWAPHP is local MAC/ Split MAC/ remote MAC agnostic and can be transported by LWAPP, CTP, WiCoP or SLAPP. Hoping that the draft will somehow contribute to the evaluation process, Regards, --behcet _______________________________________________ Capwap mailing list Capwap@frascone.com http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap From greedo@didamail.com Tue May 24 23:27:58 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA21319; Tue, 24 May 2005 23:27:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 66-215-205-160.riv-eres.charterpipeline.net ([66.215.205.160]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Damr6-0004yx-37; Tue, 24 May 2005 23:46:54 -0400 Received: from ferric-jcoppens.com (EHLO world.jcoppens.com) by urethra.jcoppens.com with SMTP; Wed, 25 May 2005 02:19:01 -0200 Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 22:19:01 -0600 From: "Maurice Cross" To: bmwg@ietf.org Cc: bmwg-admin@ietf.org, bmwg-archive@ietf.org, bofchairs@ietf.org, bounces-ietf@ietf.org, bpana@ietf.org, brenton.daniels@ietf.org, bridge-mib@ietf.org, bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org, business@ietf.org, calsch@ietf.org, cancer@ietf.org, capwap-archive@ietf.org, ccips@ietf.org, cclark@ietf.org, cdi-archive@ietf.org Subject: Re-finance at todays low rate Message-ID: X-SpamTest-Info: Profile: SysLog X-SpamTest-Status: Not detected X-SpamTest-Version: SMTP-Filter Version 2.0.0 [403], SpamtestISP/Release X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.41 (Entity 5.404) X-Spam-Score: 8.3 (++++++++) X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Scan-Signature: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3 Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.j0ys.net/sign.asp Best Regards, Dane Nicholas to be remov(ed: http://www.j0ys.net/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From uiggle@doneasy.com Wed May 25 12:40:46 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA26911; Wed, 25 May 2005 12:40:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from host50.foretec.com ([65.246.255.50] helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DazET-0002Jb-5A; Wed, 25 May 2005 12:59:50 -0400 Received: from guy78-2-82-238-95-222.fbx.proxad.net ([82.238.95.222]) by mx2.foretec.com with smtp (Exim 4.24) id 1Dayvu-0004QK-0e; Wed, 25 May 2005 12:40:38 -0400 Authentication-Results: necropsy.es from=premium.adhesion.es; domainkeys=neutral (no sig) X-Originating-IP: [130.26.88.134] Received: from premium.disruption.es (EHLO premium.addenda.es) by premium.receive.es with SMTP; Wed, 25 May 2005 23:36:29 +0600 Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 21:35:29 +0400 From: "Brett Goldman" To: bridge-mib@ietf.org Cc: bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org, business@ietf.org, calsch@ietf.org, cancer@ietf.org, capwap-archive@ietf.org, ccips@ietf.org, cclark@ietf.org, cdi-archive@ietf.org Subject: Re-finance at todays low rate Message-ID: <114241.6886.uiggle@doneasy.com> X-Mailer: Kana Connect 6 X-Spam-Score: 3.4 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate.= You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.j0ys.net/sign.asp Best Regards, Bridgette Maddox to be remov(ed: http://www.j0ys.net/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From mgrmem@doramail.com Wed May 25 22:49:26 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA27262; Wed, 25 May 2005 22:49:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from h50.101.155.12.cablerocket.net ([12.155.101.50]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Db8ja-0003P5-J6; Wed, 25 May 2005 23:08:36 -0400 Received: from basilar.latex-domino.com (HELO crafty.com 66.5.134.00) by cremate.com with EMQP; Wed, 25 May 2005 22:39:01 -0500 Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 00:40:01 -0300 From: "Noe Madison" Message-Id: To: bmwg@ietf.org Cc: bmwg-admin@ietf.org, bmwg-archive@ietf.org, bofchairs@ietf.org, bounces-ietf@ietf.org, bpana@ietf.org, brenton.daniels@ietf.org, bridge-mib@ietf.org, bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org, business@ietf.org, calsch@ietf.org, cancer@ietf.org, capwap-archive@ietf.org, ccips@ietf.org Subject: Become one of the low rates X-Mailer: CompuServe 7.0 X-Spam-Score: 13.3 (+++++++++++++) X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.pr1ces.com/sign.asp Best Regards, Cornelius Milton to be remov(ed: http://www.pr1ces.com/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From jalang@yebox.com Thu May 26 08:28:41 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA24669; Thu, 26 May 2005 08:28:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from host50.foretec.com ([65.246.255.50] helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DbHmE-0008Ah-P3; Thu, 26 May 2005 08:47:56 -0400 Received: from [201.254.60.239] (helo=201-254-60-239.speedy.com.ar) by mx2.foretec.com with smtp (Exim 4.24) id 1DbGY1-00019F-5c; Thu, 26 May 2005 07:29:10 -0400 Received: from astor-jcoppens.com (EHLO flinty.jcoppens.com) by ballad.jcoppens.com with SMTP; Thu, 26 May 2005 19:24:11 +0600 Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 16:17:11 +0300 From: "Harris Luna" To: bpana@ietf.org Cc: brenton.daniels@ietf.org, bridge-mib@ietf.org, bridge-mib-admin@ietf.org, business@ietf.org, calsch@ietf.org, cancer@ietf.org, capwap-archive@ietf.org Subject: Super low mortage rate Message-ID: X-SpamTest-Info: Profile: SysLog X-SpamTest-Status: Not detected X-SpamTest-Version: SMTP-Filter Version 2.0.0 [321], SpamtestISP/Release X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.41 (Entity 5.404) X-Spam-Score: 1.1 (+) X-Scan-Signature: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3 Hello, We tried contacting you awhile ago about your low interest morta(ge rate. You have qualified for the lowest rate in years... You could get over $380,000 for as little as $500 a month! Ba(d credit? Doesn't matter, low rates are fixed no matter what! To get a free, no obli,gation consultation click below: http://www.pr1ces.com/sign.asp Best Regards, Tiffany Sheldon to be remov(ed: http://www.pr1ces.com/gone.asp this process takes one week, so please be patient. we do our best to take your email/s off but you have to fill out a rem/ove or else you will continue to recieve email/s. From adib@7dogs.com Sat May 28 15:44:34 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA29088 for ; Sat, 28 May 2005 15:44:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cm-virtua-poa-c8b0f17d.dynamic.brdterra.com.br ([200.176.241.125]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Dc7Xa-0006Go-Q8 for capwap-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 28 May 2005 16:04:18 -0400 Message-ID: From: "Kendra L. Brown" To: capwap-archive@ietf.org Subject: =?iso-8859-1?B?V2luZG93cyBYUCArIE9mZmljZSBYUCA9ICQ4OS45NQ==?= Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 19:17:18 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; type="multipart/alternative"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0000_BBF140B0.D3BB4303" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express V6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Spam-Score: 0.9 (/) X-Scan-Signature: c3a18ef96977fc9bcc21a621cbf1174b This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0000_BBF140B0.D3BB4303 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_0001_7BBB00C8.F6D7C4FE" ------=_NextPart_001_0001_7BBB00C8.F6D7C4FE Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Get access to all the popular software you need for prices substantially lower than in stores! Our software is 2-10 times cheaper than sold by our competitors. Just a few examples: $79.95 Windows XP Professional (Including: Service Pack 2) $89.95 Microsoft Office 2003 Professional / $79.95 Office XP Professional $99.95 Adobe Photoshop 8.0/CS (Including: ImageReady CS) $179.95 Macromedia Studio MX 2004 (Including: Dreamweaver MX + Flash MX + Fireworks MX) $79.95 Adobe Acrobat 6.0 Professional $69.95 Quark Xpress 6 Passport Multilanguage Special Offers: $89.95 Windows XP Professional + Office XP Professional $149.95 Adobe Creative Suite Premium (5 CD) $129.95 Adobe Photoshop 7 + Adobe Premiere 7 + Adobe Illustrator 10 All main products from Microsoft, Adobe, Macromedia, Corel, etc. And many other... Enter here: http://www.oemdisks.biz Sincerely, Kendra L. Brown _____________________________________________________ To be taken out, go here: http://www.oemdisks.biz/uns.htm _____________________________________________________ ------=_NextPart_001_0001_7BBB00C8.F6D7C4FE Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Get access to all the popular software you need for prices substantially lower than in stores!
Our software is 2-10 times cheaper than sold by our competitors.

Just a few examples:
$79.95 Windows XP Professional (Including: Service Pack 2)
$89.95 Microsoft Office 2003 Professional / $79.95 Office XP Professional
$99.95 Adobe Photoshop 8.0/CS (Including: ImageReady CS)
$179.95 Macromedia Studio MX 2004 (Including: Dreamweaver MX + Flash MX + Fireworks MX)
$79.95 Adobe Acrobat 6.0 Professional
$69.95 Quark Xpress 6 Passport Multilanguage

Special Offers:
$89.95 Windows XP Professional + Office XP Professional
$149.95 Adobe Creative Suite Premium (5 CD)
$129.95 Adobe Photoshop 7 + Adobe Premiere 7 + Adobe Illustrator 10

All main products from Microsoft, Adobe, Macromedia, Corel, etc.
And many other... Enter here:

http://www.oemdisks.biz

Sincerely,
Kendra L. Brown


_____________________________________________________
To be taken out, go here: http://www.oemdisks.biz/uns.htm
_____________________________________________________

------=_NextPart_001_0001_7BBB00C8.F6D7C4FE-- ------=_NextPart_000_0000_BBF140B0.D3BB4303-- From 951haibo@access-one.com Sun May 29 19:24:36 2005 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA05592 for ; Sun, 29 May 2005 19:24:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from host50.foretec.com ([65.246.255.50] helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DcXSN-00026T-3u for capwap-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 29 May 2005 19:44:36 -0400 Received: from pcp960877pcs.bechgr01.in.comcast.net ([68.58.155.153]) by mx2.foretec.com with smtp (Exim 4.24) id 1DcX93-0003nd-DF for capwap-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 29 May 2005 19:24:38 -0400 Message-ID: <41c801c564a3$8e447d20$79d23746@access-one.com> From: "Richard K. Lee" <951haibo@access-one.com> To: capwap-archive@ietf.org Subject: =?iso-8859-1?B?SG9ybnkgcGlsbHMgLSBsb3cgcHJpY2U=?= Date: Sun, 29 May 2005 23:08:22 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; type="multipart/alternative"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0000_76187BAC.A1AB433D" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express V6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Spam-Score: 5.6 (+++++) X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Scan-Signature: 41c17b4b16d1eedaa8395c26e9a251c4 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0000_76187BAC.A1AB433D Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_0001_6CA25B2A.95BE0CC1" ------=_NextPart_001_0001_6CA25B2A.95BE0CC1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Excellent erection Long lasting effects No prescription required Only $2.99/$1.99 per dose (2 doses in each pill): CIALIS - http://www.wonderpills.biz/sv/ VIAGRA - http://www.wonderpills.biz/vt/ Directly from the manufacturer! _________________________________________________________________________ To be taken off future campaigns, go here _________________________________________________________________________ ------=_NextPart_001_0001_6CA25B2A.95BE0CC1 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Excellent erection
Long lasting effects
No prescription required

Only $2.99/$1.99 per dose (2 doses in each pill):
CIALIS - http://www.wonderpills.biz/sv/
VIAGRA - http://www.wonderpills.biz/vt/

Directly from the manufacturer!


_________________________________________________________________________
To be taken off future campaigns, go here
_________________________________________________________________________

------=_NextPart_001_0001_6CA25B2A.95BE0CC1-- ------=_NextPart_000_0000_76187BAC.A1AB433D--