From xml-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Sun Jun 1 06:14:53 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0EDD28C2E0 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2008 06:14:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Va5xN3qHd-kX for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2008 06:14:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx2.tigertech.net (mx2.tigertech.net [64.62.209.32]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E79328C207 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2008 05:31:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D9AC4319CF for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2008 05:31:06 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: frascone.com mailing list memberships reminder From: xml-owner@frascone.com X-No-Archive: yes Message-ID: Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2008 05:30:10 -0700 Precedence: bulk X-BeenThere: xml@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 List-Id: Diameter XML Dictionary Design Team List -- CLOSED -- ARCHIVES ONLY X-List-Administrivia: yes To: capwap-archive@lists.ietf.org Errors-To: xml-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com This is a monthly reminder about your frascone.com mailing list memberships. It shows the lists you are subscribed to, your passwords, and a Web page URL you can use to manage your subscriptions. Visit the Web page URL shown below to unsubscribe, change your e-mail address, temporarily disable your subscription for a vacation, set digest-style delivery, and so on. You can also use e-mail to make changes. For more info, send a message to the '-request' address of the list (for example, xml-request@frascone.com) containing just the word 'help' in the message body. An e-mail message will be sent to you with instructions. Here is the subscription information for capwap-archive@lists.ietf.org: List Password // URL ---- -------- capwap@frascone.com ugimni http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/options/capwap/capwap-archive%40lists.ietf.org From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Mon Jun 2 08:44:07 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E343028C1F5 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 08:44:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id loC-EKvulNl6 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 08:44:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx2.tigertech.net (mx2.tigertech.net [64.62.209.32]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 340163A69B1 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 08:42:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6847433CC0 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 08:42:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EFAE433BB9 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 08:42:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hgblob.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9C55322BBB9 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 08:42:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from hgblob.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hgblob.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEFC8322B933 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 08:41:58 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (64.102.122.149 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com (rtp-iport-2.cisco.com [64.102.122.149]) by hgblob.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 08:41:58 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,578,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="9874095" Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 Jun 2008 11:41:53 -0400 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m52Ffq63008867; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 11:41:53 -0400 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m52Ffohv019726; Mon, 2 Jun 2008 15:41:52 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 2 Jun 2008 08:39:49 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 08:39:48 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205D6B7D6@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP clarifications Thread-Index: AcjBoW+zlPRr9ugoQk6St10i4FLAXwDJJ3tw References: From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Vishal Study" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Jun 2008 15:39:49.0430 (UTC) FILETIME=[E462AD60:01C8C4C6] Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP clarifications X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com See below. PatC -----Original Message----- From: Vishal Study [mailto:vishal.study@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 8:34 AM To: capwap@frascone.com Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP clarifications Hello everyone: I'm new to CAPWAP world and have some questions on draft-ietf-capwap-protocol-specification-10.txt: - It talks about Local and Split MAC functionality. Should both modes must be supported? Which one is the most commonly used? The spec says that WTPs MUST support Local mode, while Split mode is optional. - What is the typical pkt size between WTP and AC? Is it 1500B? Section 2.3.2.1 says: o DTLSMtuUpdate is sent by the CAPWAP component to modify the MTU size used by the DTLS component. See Section 3.5 for more information on MTU Discovery. The default size is 1468 bytes. I would also point you to the MTU Discovery, section 3.5. - Typically, how many WTPs are supported by a single AC? Not a standards issue, and therefore not relevant for this list. - At WTP, all 802.11 data packets are tunnelled using CAPWAP hdr and sent over wired interface to AC. i.e. all packets from STA *must* be sent to AC by WTP. WTP can't route the pkts by itself? Is that correct? Local mode means the WTP routes/bridges packets natively - no tunneling. The "IEEE 802.11 Binding" section in the 802.11 binding document will provide the info you are looking for. - UpLink traffic - AC does the following to forward a Plain text data pkt (i.e. IP/UDP/CAPWAP-hdr/Wireless Payload) - process IP/UDP - extract final Destination information from CAPWAP-hdr - route pkt to final destination See the section I pointed you to above, as this will also be covered. So, the data rate performance of AC is tied to how fast it can do the above (i.e. UDP/IP processing, route lookup and forwarding). If secured, AC needs to do AES-128 operations as well. If the AC is sitting in the data path, then yes, its performance can be the limiting factor. Encryption of the data plane is optional. _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 4 09:02:17 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05D543A6CB5 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 09:02:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.661 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.661 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.062, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RP5QbyLZ2Alg for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 09:02:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx2.tigertech.net (mx2.tigertech.net [64.62.209.32]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B9993A6B00 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 09:02:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4A42433CE6 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 09:02:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5405D433CDA for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 09:01:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hgblob.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 814A81D8C9C5 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 09:01:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from hgblob.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hgblob.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8ED71D8C9CA for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 09:01:52 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com (nj300815-nj-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.12.100]) by hgblob.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 09:01:51 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,590,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="122078604" Received: from unknown (HELO nj300815-nj-erheast.avaya.com) ([198.152.6.5]) by nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 04 Jun 2008 12:01:49 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,590,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="205933012" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.10]) by nj300815-nj-erheast-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 04 Jun 2008 12:01:49 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 18:01:44 +0200 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: AD review for draft-ietf-capwap-protocol-specification-10.txt Thread-Index: AcjGXEi3hG24KdsAS86Xw9OZuZ6a6w== From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: Subject: [Capwap] AD review for draft-ietf-capwap-protocol-specification-10.txt X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Here is the AD review of draft-ietf-capwap-protocol-specification-10.txt. Although the document is mature there are a number of places where it can be improved for readability and clarity, and some inconsistencies that should be solved before submitting it to IETF Last Call. I advice to clarify these issues and issue a revised version. I have divided my comments in Technical and Editorial. Technical T1 - a generic comment. In many protocol fields definitions the document lacks max size or max length definitions. I tried but I may have not caught them all. Is the assumption made that for all these fields always the maximum capacity should be reserved? In this case I suggest that a clarification is made in Section 1.2. I prefer however explicit definition of max size and max length whenever needed, as it is not always necessary and wise from a resources point of view to design for max values. T2 - Section 1.1 - Layer 2 and radio technology independence and extensibility seem to me to be major goals of CAPWAP to the same extent as the three goals already mentioned. T3 - Section 2 - 'Protocol Overview' describes the process of discovery and provisioning exchange between the AC and WTP. This seems to be different than the pre-provisioning phase described in Section 12.5. Please clarify and bring this two sections in synch. Also be more clear what parameters are being provisioned in the provisioning exchanged described here. T4 - Section 2.3.1, page 25, Configure to Reset - it is not clear what 'reset the connection' means, this state needs clarification, for example what is the difference / relationship to DTLS teardown T5 - Section 4.3, pag 47 - As I understand the 5 bit field encodes 32 possible wireless bindings (i.e. it's not a bit mask). If true it would be good to make this explicit. My question is whether there is any reason to start with value 1 and not with value 0? Assuming this is already deployed, will 0 be a value to use, or does it have any special significance? T6 - Section 4.3, page 48 - 'This is useful in packets sent from the WTP to the AC, when the native wireless frame format is converted to 802.3 by the WTP.'. Please explain why (is Radio MAC address useful)? Also, s/802.3/IEEE 802.3 format/ T7 - Section 4.3, pag 49 - what is the max size of this Data field in the Wireless specific information. Is it 255 as the length is coded in 8 bit or something else? Please detail. T8 - Session 4.4.1, pag. 50 - what is the max size of the Message Element field? Please detail T9 - Section 4.4.2 - what is the max size of IEEE 802.3 frames that is being supported? Is IEEE 802.3as supported. Please detail T10 - Section 4.5.1.1 - it is not explicitly said whether the CAPWAP control messages in the table at page 54 apply for any wireless technology. If true, why is only a value for IEEE 802.11 mentioned in this specification? In my opinion there is a need to clarify and to take out the IEEE 802.11 value, which should be mentioned in the technology binding document. T11 - Section 4.6 - Please define the CAPWAP Message elements Type Values that are currently TBD T12 - Section 4.6.1 - in the AC Descriptor protocol diagram delete =4 from the Type filed (it can be 4 or 5 as I understand) T13 - Section 4.6.1 - please define the max length of the vendor specific field information T14 - Sections 4.6.2, 4.6.3 - what is the max number of IP addresses on the two lists? T15 - Section 4.6.4, 4,6,5 - what is the max size of the AC names? T16 - the document is not consistent in defining which one of the configuration objects is to be saved in non-volatile memory. For example in 4.6.7 it is mentioned that this message element information is not expected to be saved in non-volatile memory - if this is an exception what is the rule? T17 - Section 4.6.7, 4.6.9 - what is the max length of the MAC address field? (i.e. how many addresses at most on the ACL MAC list?) T18 - Section 4.6.8 - what is the max length of the VLAN Name? As nothing is said I assume the max value currently supported but IEEE 802.1Q but it's better to be specific T19 - Section 4.6.16 - what is the max size of the Data field in the Data transfer Data message? T20 - Section 4.6.16, 4.6.17, 4.6.33, 4.6.36, 4.6.42, 4.6.43 - why do the encoded values start from 1 and not from 0? T21 - Section 4.6.18, 4.6.20 - what is the max number of entries in the array (and thus the max length of the respective MAC Address fields)? T22 - Sections 4.2.24, 4.2.25 - why are the length field defined as >= 12, and >= 24 respectively. Is this triplicate addresses? Or more? And if such cases exist, is this important to detect and report all in one message? T23 - Section 4.6.26 - what is the unit for the Idle timeout T24 - Sections 4.6.27, 4.6.28 - should not these two messages include length of the Value fields? T25 - Section 4.6.29 - what is the max length of the Value field? T26 - Section 4.6.31 - what is the max length of the location field? T27 - Section 4.6.36 - what is the max length of the Message Element field? T28 - Section 4.6.39 - I do not understand the semantics of the value field - what does 'The value associated with the vendor specific element' mean? Is this one byte as the diagram shows, or variable length as indicated by the fact that the length of the message shows >=7? If variable length what is the max length? T29 - Section 4.6.40 - what is the max length of the Optional additional vendor specific WTP board data TLVs? What kind of information is expected to be carried there? The field is not described T30 - Section 4.6.41 - what are the max values of the Value fields? What is the semantics of Other Software version? I do not understand what non-running (firmware) means T31 - Section 4.6.46 - what is the max length of the WTP name field? T32 - Section 4.6.48 - are 16 bits enough to encode the wireless link frame per second. Is an WTP never supposed to exceed 64k frames per second over the air interface? T33 - Sections 4.6.49, 4.6.50 - Do the statistics counters defined here initialize at zero and wrap-up and start counting from start when the max value is reached? This may seem the obvious behavior, but there are other, so clarifying would be useful. It also would be useful to estimate the minimum wrap-up time for each of the counters T34 - Section 4.7.2 - there is no unit specified for the DataChannelKeepAlive timer T35 - section 4.7.14 - this variable is not defined T36 - Section 8.1 - 'The WTP retains the configuration of parameters provided by the AC that are non-default values.' - does this mean that any parameter that has a default value needs not be stored in non-volatile memory, and the WTP will restore the defaults for these parameters on all reset, power-up or bootstrap event? T37 - Section 8.1 - If the WTP opts to save the configuration locally - how is this option selected? Is this a local WTP configurations issue? If so please specify T38 - Section 9 should start with deployment considerations. It looks like there are some assumptions made here about at least an AC being present and configured at deployment, and other such. This should be made clear. T39. Section 13 is insufficient. The recommendation concerning non-configurability of WTPs makes, sense, but what about the ACS? How are ACs configured? It is OK to say that they are configured by proprietary CLI and/or MIB interfaces that will be defined in other CAPWAP document and/or by NETCONF in the future, but something needs to be said. T40 - The same section should include information about impact on network traffic. What is the extra level of traffic that is expected by introducing and deploying CAPWAP? Is there any limit of AC load that needs to be taken into consideration in order to avoid congestion on the network or on the AC? Probably this section should be renamed to also cover Operational considerations, Editorial E1 - In the Abstract section, please eliminate the phrase 'The CAPWAP protocol meets the IETF CAPWAP working group protocol requirements.' or replace it with something that points to a reference less ephemeral than the CAPWAP WG. E2 - A number of editorial problems have been detected when running idnits. Please fix them: ------------------ Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- == Using lowercase 'not' together with uppercase 'MUST' is not an accepted usage according to RFC 2119. Please use 'MUST NOT' (if that is what you mean). Found 'MUST not' in this paragraph: Unless otherwise specified, a control message that lists a set of supported (or expected) message elements MUST not expect the message elements to be in any specific order. The sender MAY include the message elements in any order. Unless otherwise noted, one message element of each type is present in a given control message. Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'ChangeCipherSpec' is mentioned on line 1456, but not defined '[ChangeCipherSpec]...' == Unused Reference: 'RFC2132' is defined on line 6048, but no explicit reference was found in the text '[RFC2132] Alexander, S. and R. Droms, "DHCP Options and BOOTP Vendo...' ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3280 (Obsoleted by RFC 5280) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2434 (Obsoleted by RFC 5226) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1883 (Obsoleted by RFC 2460) -- Unexpected draft version: The latest known version of draft-calhoun-dhc-capwap-ac-option is -00, but you're referring to -02. -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref. 'I-D.calhoun-dhc-capwap-ac-option' (No intended status found in state file of draft-calhoun-dhc-capwap-ac-option) == Outdated reference: draft-housley-aaa-key-mgmt has been published as RFC 4962 ---------------------------- E3. Section 1.3 and Informative References The reference for LWAPP is http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-04.txt. Please define an Informative Reference and include a proper [LWAPP] reference in the text The reference for SLAPP is http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-01.txt. Please define an Informative Reference and include a proper [SLAPP] reference in the text E4. Section 2.1: 'The CAPWAP protocol is independent of a specific WTP radio technology.' My understanding is that CAPWAP is independent not only of the radio technology but also of the layer 2 protocol. I suggest to mention this. E5. First paragraph in Section 2.2 - what 'ideal case' means here? And what 'idealized illustration' means in the last paragraph of the same section? Maybe what is meant is simplified? E6. Please expand DTLS, PSK, EPCGlobal at first occurrence in the text. E7. Section 2.3, page 18, definition of threads - repetition 'figure Figure 3' (three occurrences) E8. Section 2.3, page 18 'Discovery Thread' - 'The state machine transitions in figure 3 are represented by numerals.' - is this true? Are not state transitions like Discovery to Discovery or Discovery to Sulking, etc. represented by special signs, so this should be rather 'represented by discovery and special signs'? E9. Section 2.3, page 24 - the following phrase does not compile well: 'The WTP enters the Image Data state when it receives a successful Join Response message and determines and the included Image Identifier message element is not the same as its currently running image.' E10. Section 2.4.4.3, page 38 - s/a device must have the id-kp-capwapWTP or id-kp-anyExtendedKeyUsage keyPurposeID to act as a WTP/a device MUST have the id-kp-capwapWTP or id-kp-anyExtendedKeyUsage keyPurposeID to act as a WTP E11. Section 3.4 - s/the CAPWAP protocol can be used in any network configuration/the CAPWAP protocol can be used in any network topology including firewall, NAT and middlebox devices/ E12. Section 4.1, page 45 - s/The reason for this header/The reason for this preamble/ E13. Section 4.4.1 - title should be CAPWAP Data Channel Keepalive to be consistent with the rest of the text E14 Section 4.5.2 s/802.1P/802.1Q/ s/precedence value/priority tag/ s/DSCP tag value/DSCP value/ E15. Section 4.7, page 83 - s/This section contains the CAPWAP timers/This section contains the definition of the CAPWAP timers E16 - Sections 4.7.10, 4.7.11, 4.7.12, 4.7.13, 4.7.14 (maybe, not clear what this is, see technical comment), 4.7.15, 4.7.16 are not timers but time-related configuration variables. The name of section 4.7 needs to be changed E17 - Some of the message diagrams are numbered as Figures, some are not. For example the diagram at page 14-15 is not numbered, while the one at page 119 is numbered as Figure 5. Please pick a consistent choice (I prefer numbering) _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From caa@gesvt.com Fri Jun 6 11:22:12 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E6753A6C1C; Fri, 6 Jun 2008 11:22:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -74.826 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-74.826 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, FS_REPLICA=0.994, FS_REPLICAWATCH=10.357, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_SPEC_REPLICA_OBFU=1.812, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_NOV5A=1.062, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YJnXZJk-vVal; Fri, 6 Jun 2008 11:22:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from total-pool4-148.metrotel.net.co (unknown [200.89.125.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 6D54C3A6B8D; Fri, 6 Jun 2008 11:22:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: 66.77.48.227 by smtp.200.89.125.148; Fri, 06 Jun 2008 14:22:18 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Johnie Aguirre" Reply-To: "Johnie Aguirre" To: atompub-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: New replica watches delivered fast Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 14:22:18 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit A Breitling watch is a statement not just of wealth, but of sophistication... it's a way to show the world that you are a man in charge of your life and that you know exactly what you want. Surely, among those things you do want is a bigger budget. So, why not kill two birds with one stone? Getting a replica Breitling wristwatch and keeping your budget practically untouched! http://cogewiwavug15.blogspot.com/ Thanks to Prestige Replicas it is now possible! With an astonishing collection of replica Breitling timepieces at rock bottom prices, Selissia will make the delights of quality watches lovers. It offers excellent quality timepieces at unsurpassed prices; a privacy-assured guarantee, incomparable customer service, and what's better: 15% off when you buy two watches! http://cogewiwavug15.blogspot.com/ From c.matthews@qls.net.au Fri Jun 6 19:16:45 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D925C3A68D2; Fri, 6 Jun 2008 19:16:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -79.152 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-79.152 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC=4.295, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HELO_EQ_DIALUP=0.862, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, HOST_EQ_DIALUP=0.862, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_SPEC_REPLICA_OBFU=1.812, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_NOV5A=1.062, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FJu3PHsJ-3th; Fri, 6 Jun 2008 19:16:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from r190-133-129-206.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy (r190-133-129-206.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy [190.133.129.206]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id A7A6B3A67FB; Fri, 6 Jun 2008 19:16:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: 80.38.245.6 by smtp.190.133.129.206; Fri, 06 Jun 2008 22:16:52 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Steve Hankins" Reply-To: "Steve Hankins" To: atompub-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: Elegant watches for less than half Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 22:16:52 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit The new Porsche Design watches originated from the novel Titanium Chronograph from the 1970's, an absolutely unique creation due to the perfection of its workmanship. Based on its design, the Porsche Design Company developed an appealing, stylish, sporty and highly accurate watch. Unfortunately, these timepieces come with a high price tag. http://zybyfususyh58.blogspot.com/ That's why a clever group of European manufacturers decided to offer the same exact functionality and style at greatly reduced prices: the Porsche Design replica watches. These replicas are so similar to the brand name pieces that it is practically impossible to tell them apart, other than by their price. They look the same, they function the same and they definitely don't have the same prices :) How would you like to browse through an amazing collection of these watches and marvel yourself with their low prices? Visit Prestige Replicas and see for yourself why sometimes replicas are so much better than the originals! http://zybyfususyh58.blogspot.com/ From c_nieva@vsservicios-e.com Fri Jun 6 20:22:37 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AAF73A6962; Fri, 6 Jun 2008 20:22:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -61.836 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-61.836 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, FB_QUALITY_REPLICA=10.357, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, FS_REPLICA=0.994, GB_ROLEX=5, HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC=4.295, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HELO_EQ_DIALUP=0.862, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, HOST_EQ_DIALUP=0.862, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_SPEC_REPLICA_OBFU=1.812, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_HIQLT=1.666, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_NOV5A=1.062, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_NOV5F=0.666, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_REP=1.666, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QNr3A3F7uZb5; Fri, 6 Jun 2008 20:22:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from r190-133-138-143.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy (r190-133-138-143.dialup.adsl.anteldata.net.uy [190.133.138.143]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 2D1683A6807; Fri, 6 Jun 2008 20:21:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: 108.240.226.139 by smtp.190.133.138.143; Fri, 06 Jun 2008 23:22:02 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Meredith Butts" Reply-To: "Meredith Butts" To: calsch-archive@ietf.org Subject: One of a kind replicas Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 23:22:02 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Have you always wanted a Rolex, but don't want to pay high prices for a brand name watch? Then you need to visit Prestige Replicas, a website dedicated exclusively to high quality replicas, with the most extensive inventory on the web and a proven track record of satisfied customers. http://vywybybulym81.blogspot.com/ Prestige Replicas offers hundreds of Rolex replica watches starting just above $100, and during this spring season, their already low prices have been slashed by 15 percent if you buy two or more watches! No matter which model Rolex you choose, their 15% discount applies to them all! But don't let this limited time offer go by... spring is ending and it's time to impress your friends with a realistic, high quality Rolex replica watch, that will look and perform just like the real deal! http://vywybybulym81.blogspot.com/ From cachivache@liceobouzas.com Sat Jun 7 01:21:06 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A633F3A6A35; Sat, 7 Jun 2008 01:21:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -82.679 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-82.679 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, J_CHICKENPOX_24=0.6, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_RECV_SPEEDY_AR=0.808, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ap04gdYp5qaY; Sat, 7 Jun 2008 01:21:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 190-51-114-217.speedy.com.ar (unknown [190.51.114.217]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 946EB3A6A05; Sat, 7 Jun 2008 01:20:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: 72.240.60.19 by smtp.190.51.114.217; Sat, 07 Jun 2008 04:21:09 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Summer Engel" Reply-To: "Summer Engel" To: capwap-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: You can save 80% Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2008 04:21:09 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit A Bvlgari watch is an extraordinary masterpiece that is born from the marriage of watch making and jewelry expertise. Only the most discriminating and sophisticated watch users dare put a Bv1gari on their wrists, but once the metal touches their skin, they are bound forever... How would you like to become one of the lucky few that have experienced the pleasure of sporting a Bvlgari timepiece? Now you can, and at a very reduced cost! Prestige Replicas offers a tremendous collection of Bvlgari replicas starting just a little above $200... So now there is no reason why you can't have your very own Bvlgari today! http://pegoruwobax87.blogspot.com/ From c.koprek@kroymans-nuernberg.com Sun Jun 8 07:35:57 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10EFC3A69D7; Sun, 8 Jun 2008 07:35:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -87.153 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-87.153 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_60=1, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, FS_REPLICA=0.994, HELO_DYNAMIC_DHCP=1.398, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hjdaxN7jnqYv; Sun, 8 Jun 2008 07:35:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from adsl190-24114205.dyn.etb.net.co (unknown [190.24.114.205]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 9E6E73A6958; Sun, 8 Jun 2008 07:35:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: 75.45.143.94 by smtp.190.24.114.205; Sun, 08 Jun 2008 10:36:15 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Jewel Vick" Reply-To: "Jewel Vick" To: atompub-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: One of a kind replicas Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2008 10:36:15 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit What comes to mind when you hear the words Louis Vuitton? Of course, the classic style, the superior quality of their bags, their unique look, and their inflated price tag. But, how about being able to afford a beautiful Louis Vuitton handbag without having to dent your budget? It is now possible. Thanks to Prestige Replicas, that Louis Vuitton bag or wallet is closer to you than ever before! Come visit our new designer bag section and pick that special Louis Vuitton handbag that you've always wanted. http://kabasipovyd35.blogspot.com/ Remember, Prestige Replicas offers award winning customer service and an absolute guarantee of its products and your privacy! http://kabasipovyd35.blogspot.com/ From c.thien@neurological-surgery.org Sun Jun 8 07:43:27 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFEA53A6BF8; Sun, 8 Jun 2008 07:43:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -79.591 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-79.591 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_60=1, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, FS_REPLICA=0.994, FS_REPLICAWATCH=10.357, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_SPEC_REPLICA_OBFU=1.812, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_NOV5A=1.062, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WuKTLU+AUFme; Sun, 8 Jun 2008 07:43:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Dynamic-IP-19015911740.cable.net.co (unknown [190.159.117.40]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B864B3A6B2C; Sun, 8 Jun 2008 07:43:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: 198.96.218.222 by smtp.190.159.117.40; Sun, 08 Jun 2008 10:43:43 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Allie Holloway" Reply-To: "Allie Holloway" To: avt@ietf.org Subject: Affordable replica watches Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2008 10:43:43 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit With hundreds of models to choose from, rock bottom prices and the best customer service in the whole wide web, Prestige Replicas has become the standard by which replica watches stores are measured. It's no wonder every day hundreds of new visitors flock to this website in search of the ultimate (yet affordable) gift: a replica Breitling watch. And every one of these visitors has been exceedingly delighted with the quality of their new Breitling timepiece. http://bewigotufuk05.blogspot.com/ Prestige Replicas is a well-established online store that has made the purchase of a replica timepiece easy, safe and affordable. They take pride in the exceptional quality watches they offer, and will do whatever it takes to provide you with a distinctive replica timepiece like the one you've always wanted. That's why they now offer an extra 15% discount in the purchase of two watches. Just when you thought Prestige Replicas couldn't get any better, they have improved the perfect watch shopping experience! http://bewigotufuk05.blogspot.com/ From c.vinzent@orthagis.de Sun Jun 8 15:57:15 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C4683A67FF; Sun, 8 Jun 2008 15:57:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -79.841 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-79.841 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_80=2, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_SPEC_REPLICA_OBFU=1.812, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_NOV5A=1.062, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6ZV27uzUfKHy; Sun, 8 Jun 2008 15:57:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pc-181-115-47-190.cm.vtr.net (pc-181-115-47-190.cm.vtr.net [190.47.115.181]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 633A53A67F6; Sun, 8 Jun 2008 15:56:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: 120.184.4.208 by smtp.190.47.115.181; Sun, 08 Jun 2008 18:56:52 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Ruby Griffin" Reply-To: "Ruby Griffin" To: avt@ietf.org Subject: Elegant watches for less than half Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2008 18:56:52 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit An IWC watch is a uniquely handcrafted time piece that combines a classical element with a timeless elegance. Its appeal comes from their traditional beauty and their superb performance. But this sophistication has always come with a high price tag. Except of course, when you buy an IWC replica. And Prestige Replicas has dozens of IWC replica watches at prices so incredibly low that you can rest assured they won't last long! So, why not head over to Prestige Replicas right now and take a look at their IWC watches? After all, isn't it time you wore a splendid wristwatch without having to spend a fortune? http://civesugasil12.blogspot.com/ From c.piereder@talkroom.at Sun Jun 8 23:24:06 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 708A83A686A; Sun, 8 Jun 2008 23:24:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -83.939 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-83.939 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_80=2, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_RECV_SPEEDY_AR=0.808, SARE_SPEC_REPLICA_OBFU=1.812, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_NOV5A=1.062, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oNgTuM4WbfL7; Sun, 8 Jun 2008 23:24:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 190-51-122-61.speedy.com.ar (unknown [190.51.122.61]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id CB8843A695C; Sun, 8 Jun 2008 23:24:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: 190.244.215.157 by smtp.190.51.122.61; Mon, 09 Jun 2008 02:24:26 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Emilio Friend" Reply-To: "Emilio Friend" To: atompub-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: Get your watch now Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 02:24:26 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit With hundreds of models to choose from, rock bottom prices and the best customer service in the whole wide web, Prestige Replicas has become the standard by which replica watches stores are measured. It's no wonder every day hundreds of new visitors flock to this website in search of the ultimate (yet affordable) gift: a replica Breitling watch. And every one of these visitors has been exceedingly delighted with the quality of their new Breitling timepiece. http://nypuwavyhof86.blogspot.com/ Prestige Replicas is a well-established online store that has made the purchase of a replica timepiece easy, safe and affordable. They take pride in the exceptional quality watches they offer, and will do whatever it takes to provide you with a distinctive replica timepiece like the one you've always wanted. That's why they now offer an extra 15% discount in the purchase of two watches. Just when you thought Prestige Replicas couldn't get any better, they have improved the perfect watch shopping experience! http://nypuwavyhof86.blogspot.com/ From c.w.d.van.gruting@bnt-holland.nl Mon Jun 9 01:44:01 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6265028C109; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 01:44:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -86.492 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-86.492 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_SPEC_REPLICA_OBFU=1.812, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_NOV5A=1.062, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gy7ko33cmNtH; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 01:44:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Dynamic-IP-19015718648.cable.net.co (unknown [190.157.186.48]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id C962628C132; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 01:43:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: 58.67.135.216 by smtp.190.157.186.48; Mon, 09 Jun 2008 04:44:21 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Abby Elliott" Reply-To: "Abby Elliott" To: avt@ietf.org Subject: Spring quality watches offer Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 04:44:21 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Since 1884 Bvlgari watches have drawn inspiration from the timeless beauty of Greek and Roman art. The time pieces that they produce are as much works of art, as a way to tell time, and now you can possess one of these splendid time pieces for a very affordable price, at Prestige Replicas. http://homohyvexyd87.blogspot.com/ This store has the finest collection of Bvlgari replica watches, and you will be astounded at the difference in price as well as amazed at the quality of their timepieces. Prestige Replicas works hard to make sure that your purchase is shipped as fast as your order is processed, and also that your private information is protected. And with the new redesign of the Prestige Replicas website, we are offering 15% off on your purchase of watches! http://homohyvexyd87.blogspot.com/ From c.hoeffer@interchic.de Mon Jun 9 10:29:47 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 685E13A6B54; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 10:29:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -71.742 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-71.742 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_95=3, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HELO_EQ_BR=0.955, HELO_EQ_DYNAMIC=1.144, HOST_EQ_BR=1.295, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_SPEC_REPLICA_OBFU=1.812, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_NOV5A=1.062, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TZLi7ChSvtmb; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 10:29:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 189-015-103-004.xd-dynamic.ctbcnetsuper.com.br (189-015-103-004.xd-dynamic.ctbcnetsuper.com.br [189.15.103.4]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 8E4EC3A69B5; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 10:29:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: 34.222.54.126 by smtp.189.15.103.4; Mon, 09 Jun 2008 13:29:46 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Fernando Laird" Reply-To: "Fernando Laird" To: avt@ietf.org Subject: Save thousands... no one will know Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 13:29:46 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit An IWC watch is a uniquely handcrafted time piece that combines a classical element with a timeless elegance. Its appeal comes from their traditional beauty and their superb performance. But this sophistication has always come with a high price tag. Except of course, when you buy an IWC replica. And Prestige Replicas has dozens of IWC replica watches at prices so incredibly low that you can rest assured they won't last long! So, why not head over to Prestige Replicas right now and take a look at their IWC watches? After all, isn't it time you wore a splendid wristwatch without having to spend a fortune? http://negywusavan06.blogspot.com/ From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Mon Jun 9 11:46:11 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77B293A6944 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 11:46:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.579 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.579 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.020, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5H1xvEQPxivz for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 11:46:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 937C83A6C5B for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 11:46:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69D071C40F5B for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 11:46:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B94244400B4 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 11:46:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CF8434AC488 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 11:46:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D020534AC4BB for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 11:46:08 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (64.170.98.32 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org [64.170.98.32]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 11:46:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id 13F9C3A6CC9; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 11:45:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20080609184504.13F9C3A6CC9@core3.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 11:45:02 -0700 (PDT) Cc: capwap@frascone.com Subject: [Capwap] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-capwap-base-mib-00.txt X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Control And Provisioning of Wireless Access Points Working Group of the IETF. Title : CAPWAP Protocol Base MIB Author(s) : Y. Shi, D. Perkins, C. Elliott, P. Agarwal Filename : draft-ietf-capwap-base-mib-00.txt Pages : 52 Date : 2008-5-21 This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols. In particular, it describes managed objects for modeling the Control And Provisioning of Wireless Access Points (CAPWAP) Protocol. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-capwap-base-mib-00.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-capwap-base-mib-00.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-6-9113153.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap --NextPart-- From cachestwo@sfz.org.ua Mon Jun 9 17:13:08 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 863FB3A67E4; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 17:13:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -81.238 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-81.238 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_80=2, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, J_CHICKENPOX_24=0.6, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 08CCs2gQOm6x; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 17:13:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from c-75-74-13-86.hsd1.fl.comcast.net (c-75-74-13-86.hsd1.fl.comcast.net [75.74.13.86]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 1D3223A6C02; Mon, 9 Jun 2008 17:11:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: 240.242.56.88 by smtp.75.74.13.86; Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:11:44 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Heather Pennington" Reply-To: "Heather Pennington" To: avt@ietf.org Subject: Save thousands... no one will know Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:11:44 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit A Bvlgari watch is an extraordinary masterpiece that is born from the marriage of watch making and jewelry expertise. Only the most discriminating and sophisticated watch users dare put a Bv1gari on their wrists, but once the metal touches their skin, they are bound forever... How would you like to become one of the lucky few that have experienced the pleasure of sporting a Bvlgari timepiece? Now you can, and at a very reduced cost! Prestige Replicas offers a tremendous collection of Bvlgari replicas starting just a little above $200... So now there is no reason why you can't have your very own Bvlgari today! http://hakonicyman08.blogspot.com/ From c.morelli@sineco.ws Tue Jun 10 11:51:58 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 908EB3A69BF; Tue, 10 Jun 2008 11:51:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -68.334 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-68.334 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC=4.295, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HELO_EQ_BR=0.955, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, HELO_EQ_TELESP=1.245, HOST_EQ_BR=1.295, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_RECV_SPAM_DOMN02=1.666, SARE_SPEC_REPLICA_OBFU=1.812, SUBJECT_FUZZY_TION=0.156, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dXOqPUGsTLsK; Tue, 10 Jun 2008 11:51:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 189-18-131-137.dsl.telesp.net.br (189-18-131-137.dsl.telesp.net.br [189.18.131.137]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 657F53A67E9; Tue, 10 Jun 2008 11:51:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: 46.220.126.139 by smtp.189.18.131.137; Tue, 10 Jun 2008 14:52:21 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Alyssa Link" Reply-To: "Alyssa Link" To: atompub-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: Inexpensive Louis Vuitton bags Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 14:52:21 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 080610-0, 10/06/2008), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean A Breitling watch is a statement not just of wealth, but of sophistication... it's a way to show the world that you are a man in charge of your life and that you know exactly what you want. Surely, among those things you do want is a bigger budget. So, why not kill two birds with one stone? Getting a replica Breitling wristwatch and keeping your budget practically untouched! http://redukypicif20.blogspot.com/ Thanks to Prestige Replicas it is now possible! With an astonishing collection of replica Breitling timepieces at rock bottom prices, Selissia will make the delights of quality watches lovers. It offers excellent quality timepieces at unsurpassed prices; a privacy-assured guarantee, incomparable customer service, and what's better: 15% off when you buy two watches! http://redukypicif20.blogspot.com/ From c.lozano@loszainos.com.ar Tue Jun 10 13:00:59 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 681183A6A1D; Tue, 10 Jun 2008 13:00:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -73.149 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-73.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_60=1, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HELO_DYNAMIC_SPLIT_IP=3.493, HELO_EQ_IP_ADDR=1.119, HOST_EQ_USERONOCOM=1.444, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_SPEC_REPLICA_OBFU=1.812, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_NOV5A=1.062, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bplzZUfuFKtF; Tue, 10 Jun 2008 13:00:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 82.213.140.21.dyn.user.ono.com (82.213.140.21.dyn.user.ono.com [82.213.140.21]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 36CD93A6AA2; Tue, 10 Jun 2008 13:00:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: 5.210.45.248 by smtp.82.213.140.21; Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:00:49 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Chrystal Whaley" Reply-To: "Chrystal Whaley" To: capwap-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: Inexpensive IWC watches Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:00:49 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit With hundreds of models to choose from, rock bottom prices and the best customer service in the whole wide web, Prestige Replicas has become the standard by which replica watches stores are measured. It's no wonder every day hundreds of new visitors flock to this website in search of the ultimate (yet affordable) gift: a replica Breitling watch. And every one of these visitors has been exceedingly delighted with the quality of their new Breitling timepiece. http://sosidasawez16.blogspot.com/ Prestige Replicas is a well-established online store that has made the purchase of a replica timepiece easy, safe and affordable. They take pride in the exceptional quality watches they offer, and will do whatever it takes to provide you with a distinctive replica timepiece like the one you've always wanted. That's why they now offer an extra 15% discount in the purchase of two watches. Just when you thought Prestige Replicas couldn't get any better, they have improved the perfect watch shopping experience! http://sosidasawez16.blogspot.com/ From caca@raizcomunicacao.com.br Wed Jun 11 01:56:36 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19F5E3A6A31; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 01:56:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -71.373 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-71.373 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_80=2, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, FS_REPLICA=0.994, FS_REPLICAWATCH=10.357, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_SPEC_REPLICA_OBFU=1.812, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_NOV5A=1.062, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_NOV5F=0.666, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7lfdHlIoFHsh; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 01:56:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from host-70-45-117-161.onelinkpr.net (host-70-45-117-161.onelinkpr.net [70.45.117.161]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 866F43A6869; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 01:56:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: 102.0.248.222 by smtp.70.45.117.161; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 04:56:34 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Myrtle Benoit" Reply-To: "Myrtle Benoit" To: avt@ietf.org Subject: Replica watches made easy Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 04:56:34 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit A Tag Heuer watch is a luxury statement on its own. Unfortunately, that luxury comes with a price... Except when you visit Prestige Replicas, the web's most comprehensive collection of brand name replica watches. In Prestige Replicas, any Tag Heuer is available for just over $200. http://zuzimylabow70.blogspot.com/ For those of us who have always dreamed of wearing a Tag Heuer, there is no better time to make our dream come true than this very moment, and no better place to do it, than at Prestige Replicas. Here you will find the most prestigious replica Tag Heuers, at an unbeatable price. Come inside now... your Tag Heuer watch is waiting for you at Prestige Replicas. http://zuzimylabow70.blogspot.com/ From c.settele@erdl-verlag.de Wed Jun 11 04:10:40 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13E623A6985; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 04:10:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -56.655 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-56.655 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_60=1, FB_QUALITY_REPLICA=10.357, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, GB_ROLEX=5, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_SPEC_REPLICA_OBFU=1.812, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX=1.666, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_HIQLT=1.666, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_NOV5A=1.062, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_NOV5F=0.666, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_REP=1.666, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nH57aEHJz7zB; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 04:10:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 217-111-235-201.fibertel.com.ar (217-111-235-201.fibertel.com.ar [201.235.111.217]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 221B03A6AAF; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 04:10:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: 210.222.16.92 by smtp.201.235.111.217; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 07:11:03 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Tamera Bentley" Reply-To: "Tamera Bentley" To: atompub-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: Why get an original watch? Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 07:11:03 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Have you always wanted a Rolex, but don't want to pay high prices for a brand name watch? Then you need to visit Prestige Replicas, a website dedicated exclusively to high quality replicas, with the most extensive inventory on the web and a proven track record of satisfied customers. http://pavyhocefez34.blogspot.com/ Prestige Replicas offers hundreds of Rolex replica watches starting just above $100, and during this spring season, their already low prices have been slashed by 15 percent if you buy two or more watches! No matter which model Rolex you choose, their 15% discount applies to them all! But don't let this limited time offer go by... spring is ending and it's time to impress your friends with a realistic, high quality Rolex replica watch, that will look and perform just like the real deal! http://pavyhocefez34.blogspot.com/ From c.frank@wildstyleinc.com Thu Jun 12 00:47:09 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C5C23A67DD; Thu, 12 Jun 2008 00:47:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -70.573 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-70.573 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, FS_REPLICA=0.994, FS_REPLICAWATCH=10.357, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_SPEC_REPLICA_OBFU=1.812, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_NOV5A=1.062, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 47vtJk-Psb82; Thu, 12 Jun 2008 00:47:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ppp-58-8-10-226.revip2.asianet.co.th (ppp-58-8-10-226.revip2.asianet.co.th [58.8.10.226]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id CE0EF3A6819; Thu, 12 Jun 2008 00:47:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: 82.50.44.228 by smtp.58.8.10.226; Thu, 12 Jun 2008 03:47:32 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Jerrod Lawson" Reply-To: "Jerrod Lawson" To: atompub-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: Why replica watches are better Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 03:47:32 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit A Breitling watch is a statement not just of wealth, but of sophistication... it's a way to show the world that you are a man in charge of your life and that you know exactly what you want. Surely, among those things you do want is a bigger budget. So, why not kill two birds with one stone? Getting a replica Breitling wristwatch and keeping your budget practically untouched! http://gerepehixin26.blogspot.com/ Thanks to Prestige Replicas it is now possible! With an astonishing collection of replica Breitling timepieces at rock bottom prices, Selissia will make the delights of quality watches lovers. It offers excellent quality timepieces at unsurpassed prices; a privacy-assured guarantee, incomparable customer service, and what's better: 15% off when you buy two watches! http://gerepehixin26.blogspot.com/ From c.w.chen@trmc.com.tw Fri Jun 13 00:01:24 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B19B3A6B27; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:01:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -77.88 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-77.88 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_95=3, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, FS_REPLICA=0.994, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_SPEC_REPLICA_OBFU=1.812, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_NOV5A=1.062, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_NOV5F=0.666, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sbB+2RKuoXO4; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:01:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 201-220-113-161.bk10-dsl.surnet.cl (201-220-113-161.bk10-dsl.surnet.cl [201.220.113.161]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 9C30F3A68D8; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:01:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: 148.30.20.1 by smtp.201.220.113.161; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 03:01:48 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Isabel Rutherford" Reply-To: "Isabel Rutherford" To: capwap-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: Get one of these awesome replicas Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 03:01:48 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit A Tag Heuer watch is a luxury statement on its own. Unfortunately, that luxury comes with a price... Except when you visit Prestige Replicas, the web's most comprehensive collection of brand name replica watches. In Prestige Replicas, any Tag Heuer is available for just over $200. http://wivelekiwum77.blogspot.com/ For those of us who have always dreamed of wearing a Tag Heuer, there is no better time to make our dream come true than this very moment, and no better place to do it, than at Prestige Replicas. Here you will find the most prestigious replica Tag Heuers, at an unbeatable price. Come inside now... your Tag Heuer watch is waiting for you at Prestige Replicas. http://wivelekiwum77.blogspot.com/ From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Fri Jun 13 15:14:49 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E00DB3A68AA for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:14:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gbnbOjXwZiSV for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:14:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E106B3A67FE for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:14:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B96041C40F3C for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:15:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14A9D4400A9 for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:15:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE99734AC3CE for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:15:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D64B334AC3EF for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:15:08 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from mms1.broadcom.com (mms1.broadcom.com [216.31.210.17]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:15:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.11.16.99] by mms1.broadcom.com with ESMTP (Broadcom SMTP Relay (Email Firewall v6.3.2)); Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:14:59 -0700 X-Server-Uuid: 02CED230-5797-4B57-9875-D5D2FEE4708A Received: by mail-irva-10.broadcom.com (Postfix, from userid 47) id 8ADF82B1; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:14:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-irva-8.broadcom.com (mail-irva-8 [10.11.18.52]) by mail-irva-10.broadcom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 760FD2B0; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:14:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-sj1-12.sj.broadcom.com (mail-sj1-12.sj.broadcom.com [10.16.128.215]) by mail-irva-8.broadcom.com (MOS 3.7.5a-GA) with ESMTP id GYD27375; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:14:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from NT-SJCA-0751.brcm.ad.broadcom.com (nt-sjca-0751 [10.16.192.221]) by mail-sj1-12.sj.broadcom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A39520501; Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:14:54 -0700 (PDT) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:14:53 -0700 Message-ID: <8954613CA6BB3242A1531D916A527A4107513566@NT-SJCA-0751.brcm.ad.broadcom.com> In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205D6B7D6@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP clarifications thread-index: AcjBoW+zlPRr9ugoQk6St10i4FLAXwDJJ3twAjcgHSA= From: "Puneet Agarwal" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , "Vishal Study" , capwap@frascone.com X-WSS-ID: 644C2EE94E047747568-01-01 Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP clarifications X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Minor nit: Local mode means the WTP routes/bridges packets natively - no tunneling. The "IEEE 802.11 Binding" section in the 802.11 binding document will provide the info you are looking for. Section 1 of -10 spec (pg 7): "The Local MAC mode of operation allows for the data frames to be either locally bridged, or tunneled as 802.3 frames. The latter implies that the WTP performs the 802.11 Integration function. In either case the L2 wireless management frames are processed locally by the WTP, and then forwarded to the AC." Thanks. -Puneet -----Original Message----- From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 8:40 AM To: Vishal Study; capwap@frascone.com Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP clarifications See below. PatC -----Original Message----- From: Vishal Study [mailto:vishal.study@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 8:34 AM To: capwap@frascone.com Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP clarifications Hello everyone: I'm new to CAPWAP world and have some questions on draft-ietf-capwap-protocol-specification-10.txt: - It talks about Local and Split MAC functionality. Should both modes must be supported? Which one is the most commonly used? The spec says that WTPs MUST support Local mode, while Split mode is optional. - What is the typical pkt size between WTP and AC? Is it 1500B? Section 2.3.2.1 says: o DTLSMtuUpdate is sent by the CAPWAP component to modify the MTU size used by the DTLS component. See Section 3.5 for more information on MTU Discovery. The default size is 1468 bytes. I would also point you to the MTU Discovery, section 3.5. - Typically, how many WTPs are supported by a single AC? Not a standards issue, and therefore not relevant for this list. - At WTP, all 802.11 data packets are tunnelled using CAPWAP hdr and sent over wired interface to AC. i.e. all packets from STA *must* be sent to AC by WTP. WTP can't route the pkts by itself? Is that correct? Local mode means the WTP routes/bridges packets natively - no tunneling. The "IEEE 802.11 Binding" section in the 802.11 binding document will provide the info you are looking for. - UpLink traffic - AC does the following to forward a Plain text data pkt (i.e. IP/UDP/CAPWAP-hdr/Wireless Payload) - process IP/UDP - extract final Destination information from CAPWAP-hdr - route pkt to final destination See the section I pointed you to above, as this will also be covered. So, the data rate performance of AC is tied to how fast it can do the above (i.e. UDP/IP processing, route lookup and forwarding). If secured, AC needs to do AES-128 operations as well. If the AC is sitting in the data path, then yes, its performance can be the limiting factor. Encryption of the data plane is optional. _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Mon Jun 16 08:35:35 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5406C3A682A for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QFdve3I9g5sC for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72E193A697D for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03488433D70 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2E084400B9 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4366734AC3CB for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5E4634AC3C2 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:54 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.71 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:54 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,653,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="57182541" Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Jun 2008 08:35:50 -0700 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5GFZooF006912 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:50 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5GFZm9q007097 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:35:50 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:49 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:49 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E9812B@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: CAPWAP IESG Review T26 Thread-Index: AcjPNY/yxqR6+dAZR4CWlpiqfFhCXQ== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Jun 2008 15:35:49.0955 (UTC) FILETIME=[A76E3130:01C8CFC6] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review T26 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com All, Here is the IESG Review Comment: T26 - Section 4.6.31 - what is the max length of the location field? I have picked a number in the proposed text below: 4.6.31. Location Data [...] Location: A non-zero terminated UTF-8 encoded string containing the WTP location, whose maximum size MUST NOT exceed 1024. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Mon Jun 16 08:35:44 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2FC63A682A for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C38j1nvKLk1W for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 038253A67DF for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0A87433D2D for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85DDD4400B8 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 563E234AC3D8 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E33D034AC461 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:00 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.117 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:00 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,653,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="113973445" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Jun 2008 08:35:56 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5GFZuOQ013936 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:56 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5GFZupo014167 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:35:56 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:54 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:54 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E9812F@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: CAPWAP IESG Issue T2 Thread-Index: AcjPCKNvAI06dDyLRae0zdkSV6CbCA== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Jun 2008 15:35:54.0623 (UTC) FILETIME=[AA3678F0:01C8CFC6] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T2 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com All, The issue provided by the IESG states: T2 - Section 1.1 - Layer 2 and radio technology independence and extensibility seem to me to be major goals of CAPWAP to the same extent as the three goals already mentioned. I believe the text already describes this in the third goal: 3. To provide a generic encapsulation and transport mechanism, enabling the CAPWAP protocol to be applied to many access point types in the future, via a specific wireless binding. However, given the reviewer did not catch on to this, perhaps it isn't clear enough, so I am proposing the following text: 3. To provide an extensible protocol that is not bound to a specific wireless technology. Extensibility is provided via a generic encapsulation and transport mechanism, enabling the CAPWAP protocol to be applied to many access point types in the future, via a specific wireless binding. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Mon Jun 16 08:35:49 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FE2E28C114 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nzczWA63zaVP for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9EDE28C108 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BAB91C40E83 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55C384400B6 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B324234AC461 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD0CB34AC397 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:01 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.117 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:01 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,653,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="113973459" Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Jun 2008 08:35:58 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5GFZuJ5007042 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:56 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5GFZupq014167 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:35:56 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:54 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:54 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98130@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: CAPWAP IESG Issue T4 Thread-Index: AcjPCZaOgc4e9HxwT8O9DdpIk/hqgw== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Jun 2008 15:35:54.0983 (UTC) FILETIME=[AA6D6770:01C8CFC6] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T4 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com The following is the issue provided by the IESG: T4 - Section 2.3.1, page 25, Configure to Reset - it is not clear what 'reset the connection' means, this state needs clarification, for example what is the difference / relationship to DTLS teardown Although the actual Reset command provides much more detail, I am proposing adding the last sentence to the 'Configure to Reset' state transition description: Configure to Reset (h): This state transition is used to reset the connection either due to an error during the configuration phase, or when the WTP determines it needs to reset in order for the new configuration to take effect. The CAPWAP Reset command is used to indicate to the peer that it will initiate a DTLS teardown. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Mon Jun 16 08:35:49 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA60128C108 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TiyJRvKpMjRs for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E11CC28C10B for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 332F71C40F37 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 749F04400BA for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BE9934AC464 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C062434AC3D3 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:02 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.117 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:01 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,653,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="113973446" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Jun 2008 08:35:56 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5GFZu3W013940 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:56 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5GFZups014167 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:35:56 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:55 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:54 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98131@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: CAPWAP IESG Issue T5 Thread-Index: AcjPCp14qviMU/+ZRc2CJUKTfJjQ4g== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Jun 2008 15:35:55.0014 (UTC) FILETIME=[AA722260:01C8CFC6] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T5 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Here is the IESG Issue: T5 - Section 4.3, pag 47 - As I understand the 5 bit field encodes 32 possible wireless bindings (i.e. it's not a bit mask). If true it would be good to make this explicit. My question is whether there is any reason to start with value 1 and not with value 0? Assuming this is already deployed, will 0 be a value to use, or does it have any special significance? No, this is not a bitmask. I'm not actually sure how to explicitely state it isn't a bitmask, because in my mind any field is not a bitmask unless it is explicitely stated, so I will use the term numerical. Further, there is no reason why zero cannot be used, so I'll renumber the fields to start at zero. So I am proposing the following text: WBID: A 5 bit numerical field which is the wireless binding identifier. The numerical identifier will indicate the type of wireless packet associated with the radio. The following numerical values are defined: 0 - IEEE 802.11 1 - IEEE 802.16 2 - EPCGlobal PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Mon Jun 16 08:36:35 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D08F3A676A for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iMPsvqnn50TN for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C96CB28C10B for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF7881C40FC8 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:37:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63C114400B8 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4BB534AC46B for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A128F34AC3A3 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:02 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.71 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:02 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,653,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="57182635" Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Jun 2008 08:36:01 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5GFZuB8007038 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:56 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5GFZupm014167 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:35:56 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:45 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:45 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98129@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: IESG Review Comment T24 Thread-Index: AcjPNNEq55gvrj7JSaOvrsKd320B3Q== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Jun 2008 15:35:45.0389 (UTC) FILETIME=[A4B579D0:01C8CFC6] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] IESG Review Comment T24 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com All, Here is the IESG Review Comment: T24 - Sections 4.6.27, 4.6.28 - should not these two messages include length of the Value fields? Originally, this was not included, because it could be inferred. However, I can imagine a software architecture where the packet size is not known when the message elements are parsed. So I have added them: 4.6.27. Image Data [...] 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Data Type | Data Length | Data .... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ [...] Data: Length of data field, with a maximum size of 1024. Data: The Image Data field contains up to 1024 characters. If the block being sent is the last one, the Opcode is set to 2. The AC MAY opt to abort the data transfer by setting the Opcode to 5. When the Opcode is 5, the Value field has a zero length. 4.6.28. Image Identifier [...] 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Vendor Identifier | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Value Length | Data... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ [...] Data: Length of data field, with a maximum size of 65535. Data: A variable length UTF-8 encoded string containing the firmware identifier to be run on the WTP. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Mon Jun 16 08:36:39 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAF7A28C10B for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L7aIlDs6FzcB for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C8343A697D for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36D85433F2A for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:37:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AC7D4400B6 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4257634AC3BD for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A711034AC3CB for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:41 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.72 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:41 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,653,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="80203685" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Jun 2008 08:36:41 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5GFafac008899 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:41 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5GFaetW014571 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:36:41 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:56 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:55 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98139@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T14 Thread-Index: AcjPLTVEQAnGzPu/Q1yv6xQingNpWQ== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Jun 2008 15:35:56.0392 (UTC) FILETIME=[AB446680:01C8CFC6] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T14 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com All, Here is the IESG Review Comment: T15 - Section 4.6.4, 4,6,5 - what is the max size of the AC names? I am proposing the following resolution, and figured that the proposed maximum size is 512 bytes for an AC name: 4.6.4. AC Name [...] AC Name: A variable length UTF-8 encoded string containing the AC name, whose maximum size MUST NOT exceed 512 bytes. 4.6.5. AC Name with Index [...] AC Name: A variable length UTF-8 encoded string containing the AC name, whose maximum size MUST NOT exceed 512 bytes. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Mon Jun 16 08:36:41 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 500283A697C for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SRNn1WWTpXo8 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66AC63A676A for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BBC11C40FA1 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:37:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4B774400B9 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 898FB34AC428 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A64E934AC3C5 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:41 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.71 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:41 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,653,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="57182992" Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Jun 2008 08:36:41 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5GFaf8R025180 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:41 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5GFaetS014571 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:36:41 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:56 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:55 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98136@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: CAPWAP IESG Issue T11 Thread-Index: AcjPEG4+TAjLFrCtQgOKnj1JL/mH2A== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Jun 2008 15:35:56.0017 (UTC) FILETIME=[AB0B2E10:01C8CFC6] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T11 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com All, The following is the IESG Comment Review: T11 - Section 4.6 - Please define the CAPWAP Message elements Type Values that are currently TBD I have made the necessary changes, but given that it touches a significant amount of text, I will only include the table here that show the new number assignment: AC Descriptor 1 AC IPv4 List 2 AC IPv6 List 3 AC Name 4 AC Name with Index 5 AC Timestamp 6 Add MAC ACL Entry 7 Add Station 8 Add Static MAC ACL Entry 9 CAPWAP Control IPV4 Address 10 CAPWAP Control IPV6 Address 11 CAPWAP Local IPV4 Address 12 CAPWAP Local IPV6 Address 13 CAPWAP Timers 14 CAPWAP Transport Protocol 15 Data Transfer Data 16 Data Transfer Mode 17 Decryption Error Report 18 Decryption Error Report Period 19 Delete MAC ACL Entry 20 Delete Station 21 Delete Static MAC ACL Entry 22 Discovery Type 23 Duplicate IPv4 Address 24 Duplicate IPv6 Address 25 Idle Timeout 26 Image Data 27 Image Identifier 28 Image Info 29 Initiate Download 30 Location Data 31 Maximum Message Length 32 Radio Administrative State 33 Radio Operational State 34 Result Code 35 Returned Message Element 36 Session ID 37 Statistics Timer 38 Vendor Specific Payload 39 WTP Board Data 40 WTP Descriptor 41 WTP Fallback 42 WTP Frame Tunnel Mode 43 WTP IPv4 IP Address 44 WTP IPv6 IP Address 45 WTP MAC Type 46 WTP Name 47 WTP Operational Statistics 48 WTP Radio Statistics 49 WTP Reboot Statistics 50 WTP Static IP Address Information 51 PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Mon Jun 16 08:37:12 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03E493A67DF for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:37:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vEKt1X61OV6g for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:37:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5278E3A697E for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:37:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7ED6F433FA5 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:37:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DDAD4400B8 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D62DF34AC461 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2759334AC3A3 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:54 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.70 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:54 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,653,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="41438886" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Jun 2008 08:35:49 -0700 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5GFZnIb013757 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:49 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5GFZm9Q007097 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:35:49 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:46 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:46 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E9812A@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T25 Thread-Index: AcjPNTZdrbg7Q8ReTYadhcoWKxqufw== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Jun 2008 15:35:46.0784 (UTC) FILETIME=[A58A5600:01C8CFC6] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T25 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com All, Here is the IESG Review Comment: T25 - Section 4.6.29 - what is the max length of the Value field? I suspect the commentor really meant 4.6.28, which was addressed by comment T24. This is therefore a duplicate entry, and will be marked as invalid. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Mon Jun 16 08:38:02 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF88E3A68CF for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:38:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Mcb5wcswo-Yx for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:38:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4D533A682A for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:38:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFD3B433D38 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:38:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 270254400B6 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD6F534AC3BD for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67E5634AC3C2 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:54 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.70 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:54 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,653,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="41439056" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Jun 2008 08:36:18 -0700 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5GFaI8O008034 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:18 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5GFaAmp026637 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:36:18 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:54 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:54 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E9812D@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: New Issue: CAPWAP DTLS Timer Clarification Thread-Index: AcjPB0ZZtzcKBflMQsueEoxaTOscGA== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Jun 2008 15:35:54.0377 (UTC) FILETIME=[AA10EF90:01C8CFC6] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] New Issue: CAPWAP DTLS Timer Clarification X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com The latest CAPWAP draft requires a small clarification on the use of the DTLS timer. The two sections are shown below, and I am highlighting the new text via the text markers. 2.4.2. DTLS Session Establishment The WTP, either through the Discovery process, or through pre- configuration, determines the AC to connect to. The WTP uses the DTLSStart command to request that a secure connection be established to the selected AC. Prior to initiation of the DTLS handshake, the WTP sets the WaitDTLS timer. Upon receiving the DTLSPeerAuthorize DTLS notification, the AC sets the WaitDTLS timer. If the DTLSEstablished notification is not received prior to timer expiration, the DTLS session is aborted by issuing the DTLSAbortSession DTLS command. This notification causes the CAPWAP module to transition to the Idle state. Upon receiving a DTLSEstablished notification, the WTP WaitDTLS timer is deactivated. 6.1. Join Request The Join Request message is used by a WTP to request service through the AC. A Join Request message is sent by a WTP after (optionally) receiving one or more Discovery Response messages, and completion of DTLS session establishment. When an AC receives a Join Request message it responds with a Join Response message. Upon completion of the DTLS handshake, and receiving the DTLSEstablished notification, the WTP sends the Join Request message to the AC. When the AC is notified of the DTLS session establishment, the AC does not clear the WaitDTLS timer until it has received the Join Request message, at which time it sends a Join Response message to the WTP, indicating success or failure. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Mon Jun 16 08:38:21 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E1243A6944 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:38:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lHffjH4sL+zn for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:38:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C87903A682A for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:38:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A30F1C41066 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:38:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F39B84400B6 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AF7734AC3D8 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2557734AC463 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:56 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.70 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:56 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,653,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="41439110" Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Jun 2008 08:36:29 -0700 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5GFaS5o024590 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:28 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5GFaPFG026938 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:36:28 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:41 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:41 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98128@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T23 Thread-Index: AcjPM3OoCC/IloCCSCmmumv3wIc6LA== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Jun 2008 15:35:41.0953 (UTC) FILETIME=[A2A92F10:01C8CFC6] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T23 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com All, Here is the IESG Review Comment: T23 - Section 4.6.26 - what is the unit for the Idle timeout This was already specified in section 4.8.5, but I will include it in this section as well. 4.6.26. Idle Timeout [...] Timeout: The current idle timeout, in seconds, to be enforced by the WTP. The default value for this message element is specified in Section 4.8.5. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Mon Jun 16 08:38:29 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B2BB3A68CF for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:38:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cuzLbZUeYg-t for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:38:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5579D3A67DF for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:38:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F68A43A236 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:38:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61F224400B8 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEEBD34AC3D3 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD37434AC3C5 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:55 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.70 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:54 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,653,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="41439057" Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Jun 2008 08:36:18 -0700 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5GFaIWr007698 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:18 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5GFaAmr026637 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:36:18 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:55 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:55 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98132@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: CAPWAP IESG Issue T6 Thread-Index: AcjPC6sIqcK3O7B1S2illouweQiqbQ== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Jun 2008 15:35:55.0065 (UTC) FILETIME=[AA79EA90:01C8CFC6] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T6 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Here is the IESG Issue: T6 - Section 4.3, page 48 - 'This is useful in packets sent from the WTP to the AC, when the native wireless frame format is converted to 802.3 by the WTP.'. Please explain why (is Radio MAC address useful)? Also, s/802.3/IEEE 802.3 format/ I am proposing the changed second sentence in the following text to address this issue: Radio MAC Address: This optional field contains the MAC address of the radio receiving the packet. Because the native wireless frame format to IEEE 802.3 format causes the MAC address of the WTP's radio to be lost, this field allows the address to be communicated to the AC. This field is only present if the 'M' bit is set. The HLEN field assumes 4 byte alignment, and this field MUST be padded with zeroes (0x00) if it is not 4 byte aligned. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Mon Jun 16 08:38:41 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03FD33A682A for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:38:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IIthQyraSxUH for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:38:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A3173A67DF for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:38:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D29B43A864 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:39:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D24B4400B6 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AD9234AC428 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C9EF34AC3A3 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:43 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.72 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:42 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,653,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="80203686" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Jun 2008 08:36:41 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5GFafFg015434 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:41 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5GFaeta014571 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:36:41 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:56 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:55 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E9813A@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T17 Thread-Index: AcjPLzVAlC/5rErySsWdtc4xv7fXjw== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Jun 2008 15:35:56.0642 (UTC) FILETIME=[AB6A8C20:01C8CFC6] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T17 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com All, Here is the IESG Review Comment: T17 - Section 4.6.7, 4.6.9 - what is the max length of the MAC address field? (i.e. how many addresses at most on the ACL MAC list?) I have addressed this issue by explicitely stating that only the formats, and lengths, of the two known EUI specifications. I have also addressed many other references to MAC Address lengths throughout the spec. 4.6.7. Add MAC ACL Entry [...] Length: The length of the MAC Address field. The following formats, and lengths, are supported [EUI-48] and [EUI-64]. 4.6.8. Add Station [...] Length: The length of the MAC Address field. The following formats, and lengths, are supported [EUI-48] and [EUI-64]. 4.6.9. Add Static MAC ACL Entry [...] Length: The length of the MAC Address field. The following formats, and lengths, are supported [EUI-48] and [EUI-64]. 4.6.18. Decryption Error Report [...] Length: The length of the MAC Address field. The following formats, and lengths, are supported [EUI-48] and [EUI-64]. 4.6.20. Delete MAC ACL Entry [...] Length: The length of the MAC Address field. The following formats, and lengths, are supported [EUI-48] and [EUI-64]. 4.6.20. Delete MAC ACL Entry [...] Length: The length of the MAC Address field. The following formats, and lengths, are supported [EUI-48] and [EUI-64]. 4.6.24. Duplicate IPv4 Address [...] Length: The length of the MAC Address field. The following formats, and lengths, are supported [EUI-48] and [EUI-64]. 4.6.25. Duplicate IPv6 Address [...] Length: The length of the MAC Address field. The following formats, and lengths, are supported [EUI-48] and [EUI-64]. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Mon Jun 16 08:39:19 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99DC43A682A for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:39:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SjxgkIPFunlr for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:39:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D51743A67DF for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:39:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0766B43A75B for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:39:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BB324400BE for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:37:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D61EA34AC461 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2404A34AC397 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:57 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.70 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:56 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,653,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="41439109" Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Jun 2008 08:36:29 -0700 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5GFaSxL024596 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:28 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5GFaPFK026938 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:36:28 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:55 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:55 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98134@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: CAPWAP IESG Review T8 Thread-Index: AcjPDWtLV7rPD99kRF+u8++xEtZCwQ== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Jun 2008 15:35:55.0955 (UTC) FILETIME=[AB01B830:01C8CFC6] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review T8 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com All, The following is the IESG Review comment: T8 - Session 4.4.1, pag. 50 - what is the max size of the Message Element field? Please detail I am proposing changing the text to the following: Message Element Length: The 8 bit Length field indicates the number of bytes following the CAPWAP Header, with a maximum size of 65535. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Mon Jun 16 08:39:21 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 945303A67DF for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:39:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lLDEZSS3oGgR for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:39:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1208D3A68CF for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:39:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79362433D38 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:39:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 478DD4400BF for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:37:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D316734AC455 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6132C34AC3BD for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:57 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.70 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:56 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,653,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="41439215" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Jun 2008 08:36:41 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5GFafwo008897 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:41 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5GFaetU014571 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:36:41 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:56 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:55 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98137@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T13 Thread-Index: AcjPEZPFbd7U4A1MRVu5HnzXgixlQA== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Jun 2008 15:35:56.0174 (UTC) FILETIME=[AB2322E0:01C8CFC6] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T13 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com All, Here is the IESG Review Comment: T13 - Section 4.6.1 - please define the max length of the vendor specific field information The field is 16 bits, but it seems excessive to allow for the field to be 65535, so I am setting the maximum to 1024 bytes. Length: Length of vendor specific encoding of AC information, with a maximum size of 1024. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Mon Jun 16 08:39:33 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB1023A6977 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:39:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pDfPpV3h96H3 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:39:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 041693A67DF for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:39:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD98F43A052 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:39:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F15F4400B6 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 809B934AC3C5 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB79534AC3AE for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:44 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.72 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:43 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,653,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="80203687" Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Jun 2008 08:36:41 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5GFafvl025194 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:41 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5GFaetc014571 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:36:41 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:56 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:55 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E9813B@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T18 Thread-Index: AcjPMFORyY1/kW15S8S8M8utx3CtEA== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Jun 2008 15:35:56.0830 (UTC) FILETIME=[AB873BE0:01C8CFC6] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T18 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com All, Here is the IESG Review Comment: T18 - Section 4.6.8 - what is the max length of the VLAN Name? As nothing is said I assume the max value currently supported but IEEE 802.1Q but it's better to be specific I agree with the comment on the maximum VLAN name, but since the message element does not reference an actual VLAN ID, there is no reason to reference the maximum VLAN number. My proposed text: 4.6.8. Add Station [...] VLAN Name: An optional variable length UTF-8 encoded string, with a maximum length of 512 octets, containing the VLAN Name on which the WTP is to locally bridge user data. Note this field is only valid with WTPs configured in Local MAC mode. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Mon Jun 16 08:39:54 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71FA53A697C for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:39:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IT4656DDGkhC for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:39:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEF413A68CF for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:39:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C6E543A56F for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:40:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 667B74400B9 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35CB634AC461 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0B6734AC44B for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:55 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.70 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:54 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,653,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="41439106" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Jun 2008 08:36:28 -0700 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5GFaSnw008376 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:28 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5GFaPFI026938 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:36:28 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:55 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:55 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98133@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: CAPWAP IESG Issue T7 Thread-Index: AcjPDLGByaUXtwuDSOGnV4CuYLXnrg== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Jun 2008 15:35:55.0736 (UTC) FILETIME=[AAE04D80:01C8CFC6] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T7 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com All, The following IESG review comment was received: T7 - Section 4.3, pag 49 - what is the max size of this Data field in the Wireless specific information. Is it 255 as the length is coded in 8 bit or something else? Please detail. I am proposing changing the text to: Length: The 8 bit field contains the length of the data field, with a maximum size of 255. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Mon Jun 16 08:40:32 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 087053A682A for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:40:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6lmgzQ7dF13E for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:40:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34DB73A697E for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:40:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51F5A1C41039 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:40:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 597604400BC for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:40:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28FFF34AC3CB for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:40:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEBE634AC3C5 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:40:22 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.117 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:40:22 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,653,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="113975424" Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Jun 2008 08:40:22 -0700 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5GFeMAx014705 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:40:22 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5GFeMGj000702 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:40:22 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:40:08 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:40:08 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98146@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T12 Thread-Index: AcjPELu416c4qMlBRmmB9tpGnVSLxQAtoMNw From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Jun 2008 15:40:08.0619 (UTC) FILETIME=[419B2FB0:01C8CFC7] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T12 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com All, The following is the IESG Comment Review: T12 - Section 4.6.1 - in the AC Descriptor protocol diagram delete =4 from the Type filed (it can be 4 or 5 as I understand) Actually, the reason why this is part of the diagram is because both 4 and 5 MUST be included (as described in the field description). So in order to make this much clearer, we have included this in the diagram. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Mon Jun 16 08:40:54 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BFF228C114 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:40:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BsSkgqcPL3db for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:40:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B59A928C10B for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:40:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78AF2433DA5 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:40:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C0934400BC for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:40:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66D3134AC3C5 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:40:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDBDD34AC455 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:40:38 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.117 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:40:38 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,653,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="113975565" Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Jun 2008 08:40:38 -0700 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5GFecS8031878 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:40:38 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5GFecL5001079 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:40:38 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:40:35 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:40:35 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98147@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T19 Thread-Index: AcjPMMu852BW1hyNTye1SUgnqWdM6QAloRYw From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Jun 2008 15:40:35.0745 (UTC) FILETIME=[51C64910:01C8CFC7] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T19 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com All, Here is the IESG Review Comment: T19 - Section 4.6.16 - what is the max size of the Data field in the Data transfer Data message? I have addressed the comment by imposing a maximum length of 65535. 4.6.16. Data Transfer Data [...] 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Data Type | Data Length | Data .... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ [...] Data Length: Length of data field, with a maximum size of 65535. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Mon Jun 16 08:44:28 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61C313A68AE for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:44:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w6nK6A3Z7CwA for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:44:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89A2C3A6825 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:44:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD6471C40FEC for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:38:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 522A44400B6 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1603934AC3DB for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F8E334AC3C5 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:54 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.70 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:54 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,653,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="41439006" Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Jun 2008 08:36:10 -0700 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5GFaAl2007484 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:10 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5GFaAmN026637 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:36:10 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:53 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:53 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E9812C@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: CAPWAP IESG Review T27 Thread-Index: AcjPNjfaDwkd/J7aQ3ipk/ZS9z6yFw== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Jun 2008 15:35:53.0346 (UTC) FILETIME=[A9739E20:01C8CFC6] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review T27 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com All, Here is the IESG Review Comment: T27 - Section 4.6.36 - what is the max length of the Message Element field? I guess we have to assume that a message element could be 65535, so I have made the necessary changes: 4.6.36. Returned Message Element [...] 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Reason | Length | Message Element... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Length: The length of the Message Element field, which MUST NOT exceed 65535 octets. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Mon Jun 16 08:44:31 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBC413A68AE for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:44:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I66qVxP-5QCn for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:44:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 017A53A6825 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:44:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 193E61C40F97 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:38:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2FD44400BC for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EB8934AC3D8 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE8D134AC399 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:43 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.72 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:43 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,653,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="80203690" Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Jun 2008 08:36:41 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5GFafgO008540 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:41 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5GFaeti014571 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:36:41 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:57 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:56 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E9813E@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: IESG Review Comment T22 Thread-Index: AcjPMvqdllbXE16MT7iJmGcNyGLN6A== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Jun 2008 15:35:57.0268 (UTC) FILETIME=[ABCA1140:01C8CFC6] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] IESG Review Comment T22 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com All, Here is the IESG Review Comment: T22 - Sections 4.2.24, 4.2.25 - why are the length field defined as >= 12, and >= 24 respectively. Is this triplicate addresses? Or more? And if such cases exist, is this important to detect and report all in one message? I'm not sure that the comment makes sense since the length of the field is correct. In both cases we assume a minimum MAC Address length of 6 octets. I believe this comment is invalid. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Mon Jun 16 08:44:32 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 823B53A68AE for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:44:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l4DcBIaEZfjE for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:44:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C02DB3A682A for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:44:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE9ED43A9C8 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:40:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 243684400BD for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:37:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4AE634AC3D8 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82B6B34AC3CB for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:57 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.70 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:56 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,653,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="41439216" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Jun 2008 08:36:41 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5GFafOa015432 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:41 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5GFaetY014571 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:36:41 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:56 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:55 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98138@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: CAPWAP IESG Review Comment Thread-Index: AcjPLHdhTR+F4WByRSqzJvoOJYfcTg== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Jun 2008 15:35:56.0611 (UTC) FILETIME=[AB65D130:01C8CFC6] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com All, The IESG Review Comment says T14 - Sections 4.6.2, 4.6.3 - what is the max number of IP addresses on the two lists? Here is the proposed text. I picked a maximum number that seems big enough in my personal opinion. 4.6.2. AC IPv4 List [...] AC IP Address: An array of 32-bit integers containing AC IPv4 Addresses, containing no more than 1024 addresses. 4.6.3. AC IPv6 List [...] AC IP Address: An array of 128-bit integers containing AC IPv6 Addresses, containing no more than 1024 addresses. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Mon Jun 16 08:44:36 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D3B13A68AE for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:44:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QX7TtT2UghPD for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:44:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39CC73A6825 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:44:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C22D343A803 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:39:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 969314400B8 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:37:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C2B734AC3CB for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:37:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69BC734AC3C5 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:58 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.70 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:57 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,653,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="41439218" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Jun 2008 08:36:41 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5GFafwc015440 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:41 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5GFaete014571 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:36:41 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:56 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:55 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E9813C@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T20 Thread-Index: AcjPMgglsZvRXFb9Sfa7Aajmt+ENsQ== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Jun 2008 15:35:56.0861 (UTC) FILETIME=[AB8BF6D0:01C8CFC6] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T20 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com All, Here is the IESG Review Comment: T20 - Section 4.6.16, 4.6.17, 4.6.33, 4.6.36, 4.6.42, 4.6.43 - why do the encoded values start from 1 and not from 0? There is actually no reason why the values did not start at zero. I will make the changes to renumber the values to start at zero (0). The only one I disagree with is 4.6.43, because this is a bit field, but I noticed that the text did not explicitely call for a bit field, so I also made the necessary change. 4.6.16. Data Transfer Data [...] Data Type: An 8-bit value the type of information being sent. The following values are supported: 0 - WTP Crash Data 1 - WTP Memory Dump 4.6.17. Data Transfer Mode [...] Data Type: An 8-bit value the type of information being requested. The following values are supported: 0 - WTP Crash Data 1 - WTP Memory Dump 4.6.33. Radio Administrative State [...] Admin State: An 8-bit value representing the administrative state of the radio. The default value for the Admin State field is listed in Section 4.8.1. The following values are supported: 0 - Enabled 1 - Disabled 4.6.36. Returned Message Element [...] Reason: The reason why the configuration in the offending message element could not be applied by the WTP. 0 - Unknown Message Element 1 - Unsupported Message Element 2 - Unknown Message Element Value 3 - Unsupported Message Element Value 4.6.42. WTP Fallback [...] Mode: The 8-bit value indicates the status of automatic CAPWAP fallback on the WTP. When enabled, if the WTP detects that its primary AC is available, and that the WTP is not connected to the primary AC, the WTP SHOULD automatically disconnect from its current AC and reconnect to its primary AC. If disabled, the WTP will only reconnect to its primary AC through manual intervention (e.g., through the Reset Request message). The default value for this field is specified in Section 4.8.10. The following values are supported: 0 - Enabled 1 - Disabled Frame Tunnel Mode: The Frame Tunnel mode specifies the tunneling modes for station data that are supported by the WTP. The following values are supported for this bit field: PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Mon Jun 16 08:47:20 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4A0D3A682A for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:47:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BRywKNxDNhSc for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:47:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 064F93A677C for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:47:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7CCC1C40F53 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:47:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8B3A4400BC for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:40:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85F2734AC399 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:40:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5BA134AC3CB for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:40:56 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.70 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:40:56 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,653,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="41440976" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Jun 2008 08:40:54 -0700 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5GFepkR016267 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:40:51 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5GFepij001345 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:40:51 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:39:27 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:39:27 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98144@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: New Issue 41: CAPWAP DTLS Timer Clarification Thread-Index: AcjPB0ZZtzcKBflMQsueEoxaTOscGAAv5WQw From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Jun 2008 15:39:27.0540 (UTC) FILETIME=[291F0740:01C8CFC7] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] New Issue 41: CAPWAP DTLS Timer Clarification X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com The latest CAPWAP draft requires a small clarification on the use of the DTLS timer. The two sections are shown below, and I am highlighting the new text via the text markers. 2.4.2. DTLS Session Establishment The WTP, either through the Discovery process, or through pre- configuration, determines the AC to connect to. The WTP uses the DTLSStart command to request that a secure connection be established to the selected AC. Prior to initiation of the DTLS handshake, the WTP sets the WaitDTLS timer. Upon receiving the DTLSPeerAuthorize DTLS notification, the AC sets the WaitDTLS timer. If the DTLSEstablished notification is not received prior to timer expiration, the DTLS session is aborted by issuing the DTLSAbortSession DTLS command. This notification causes the CAPWAP module to transition to the Idle state. Upon receiving a DTLSEstablished notification, the WTP WaitDTLS timer is deactivated. 6.1. Join Request The Join Request message is used by a WTP to request service through the AC. A Join Request message is sent by a WTP after (optionally) receiving one or more Discovery Response messages, and completion of DTLS session establishment. When an AC receives a Join Request message it responds with a Join Response message. Upon completion of the DTLS handshake, and receiving the DTLSEstablished notification, the WTP sends the Join Request message to the AC. When the AC is notified of the DTLS session establishment, the AC does not clear the WaitDTLS timer until it has received the Join Request message, at which time it sends a Join Response message to the WTP, indicating success or failure. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Mon Jun 16 08:56:58 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D6BE3A6940 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:56:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XafTrCymIkc8 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:56:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 374043A6927 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:56:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E11A433D23 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:37:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 266AE4400B6 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0D5E34AC464 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3584C34AC3CB for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:29 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.117 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:29 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,653,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="113973725" Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Jun 2008 08:36:29 -0700 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5GFaSXQ024602 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:28 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5GFaPFM026938 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:36:28 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:55 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:55 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98135@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T10 Thread-Index: AcjPD0aR/vM05wFrQNubtiXz/xrb3Q== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Jun 2008 15:35:55.0986 (UTC) FILETIME=[AB067320:01C8CFC6] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T10 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com All, The following is the IESG Review Comment: T10 - Section 4.5.1.1 - it is not explicitly said whether the CAPWAP control messages in the table at page 54 apply for any wireless technology. If true, why is only a value for IEEE 802.11 mentioned in this specification? In my opinion there is a need to clarify and to take out the IEEE 802.11 value, which should be mentioned in the technology binding document. There was actually no reason why the IEEE 802.11 IANA Enterprise Number was mentioned in this section, so I have removed it, and cleaned up the text a little bit. I've checked the CAPWAP IEEE 802.11 binding spec, and it already includes its IANA Enterprise Number, so no changes are required to that spec. I am therefore proposing the following text: 4.5.1.1. Message Type The Message Type field identifies the function of the CAPWAP control message. To provide extensibility, the Message Type field is comprised of an IANA Enterprise Number [RFC3232] and an enterprise specific message type number. The first three octets contain the IANA Enterprise Number in network byte order, with zero used for CAPWAP base protocol (this specification) defined message types. The last octet is the enterprise specific message type number, which has a range from 0 to 255. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Mon Jun 16 08:56:59 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 743FC3A6940 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:56:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gO7AHVcuSl7M for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:56:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B540C3A6927 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:56:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA3B9433DBE for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:38:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5281A4400BA for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2368034AC3BD for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3578334AC3AE for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:43 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.71 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:42 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,653,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="57182998" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Jun 2008 08:36:41 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5GFafhJ008913 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:36:41 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5GFaetg014571 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:36:41 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:56 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:35:56 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E9813D@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T21 Thread-Index: AcjPMpmu/oBw+fpJRTK2LvXKpm8MeA== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Jun 2008 15:35:57.0049 (UTC) FILETIME=[ABA8A690:01C8CFC6] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T21 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com All, Here is the IESG Review Comment: T21 - Section 4.6.18, 4.6.20 - what is the max number of entries in the array (and thus the max length of the respective MAC Address fields)? I have made the necessary changes, based on choosing a maximum number of 1024. 4.6.18. Decryption Error Report [...] Num of Entries: The number of instances of the Type/MAC Addresses fields in the array. This field MUST NOT exceed the value of 1024. 4.6.20. Delete MAC ACL Entry [...] Num of Entries: The number of instances of the Type/MAC Addresses fields in the array. This field MUST NOT exceed the value of 1024. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Mon Jun 16 09:07:01 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79B803A695F for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:07:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XQVlIQoOsRx9 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:07:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B3443A691E for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:07:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B6301C40F67 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:07:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E1CC4400B9 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:07:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C4D234AC43E for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:07:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EB6234AC3DB for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:07:29 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.70 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:07:29 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,653,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="41457623" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Jun 2008 09:07:29 -0700 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5GG7Tjg015956 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:07:29 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5GG7Sug015881 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:07:29 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:07:28 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:07:28 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98168@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98138@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T14 Thread-Index: AcjPLHdhTR+F4WByRSqzJvoOJYfcTgAnpOtg References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98138@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Jun 2008 16:07:28.0844 (UTC) FILETIME=[1341A8C0:01C8CFCB] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T14 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com This should have been T14 -----Original Message----- From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 8:36 AM To: capwap@frascone.com Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment All, The IESG Review Comment says T14 - Sections 4.6.2, 4.6.3 - what is the max number of IP addresses on the two lists? Here is the proposed text. I picked a maximum number that seems big enough in my personal opinion. 4.6.2. AC IPv4 List [...] AC IP Address: An array of 32-bit integers containing AC IPv4 Addresses, containing no more than 1024 addresses. 4.6.3. AC IPv6 List [...] AC IP Address: An array of 128-bit integers containing AC IPv6 Addresses, containing no more than 1024 addresses. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Mon Jun 16 09:07:28 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDC5B3A67A4 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:07:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B2umDlLKccpj for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:07:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 016603A6915 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:07:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E13C2433FAD for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:08:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AFAB4400B9 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:07:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB0B434AC407 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:07:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D12A34AC3D3 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:07:44 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.70 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:07:44 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,653,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="41457815" Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Jun 2008 09:07:44 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5GG7hVI032416 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:07:43 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5GG7hIG016206 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:07:43 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:07:43 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:07:43 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98169@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98139@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T15 Thread-Index: AcjPLTVEQAnGzPu/Q1yv6xQingNpWQAneBlg References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98139@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Jun 2008 16:07:43.0734 (UTC) FILETIME=[1C21B160:01C8CFCB] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T15 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com This should have been T15. PatC -----Original Message----- From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 8:36 AM To: capwap@frascone.com Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T14 All, Here is the IESG Review Comment: T15 - Section 4.6.4, 4,6,5 - what is the max size of the AC names? I am proposing the following resolution, and figured that the proposed maximum size is 512 bytes for an AC name: 4.6.4. AC Name [...] AC Name: A variable length UTF-8 encoded string containing the AC name, whose maximum size MUST NOT exceed 512 bytes. 4.6.5. AC Name with Index [...] AC Name: A variable length UTF-8 encoded string containing the AC name, whose maximum size MUST NOT exceed 512 bytes. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Mon Jun 16 09:34:54 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75EBA3A6879 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:34:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.97 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.97 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.629, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4ctOA7g76yvs for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:34:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E85F3A65A5 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:34:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B6691C40FF0 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:35:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 786814400B8 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:35:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48D1934AC43E for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:35:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F8E134AC468 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:35:24 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from gumby.elbrysnetworks.com (mail.elbrysnetworks.com [64.140.243.164]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with SMTP for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:35:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 20386 invoked from network); 16 Jun 2008 12:35:22 -0400 Received: from xpsuperdvd2.elbrysnetworks.com (HELO xpsuperdvd2) (172.22.18.93) by gumby.elbrysnetworks.com with SMTP; 16 Jun 2008 12:35:22 -0400 From: "David B. Nelson" To: "'Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)'" , References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98131@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 12:35:21 -0400 Organization: Elbrys Networks, Inc. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98131@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> Thread-Index: AcjPCp14qviMU/+ZRc2CJUKTfJjQ4gAxDkUw X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5512 Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T5 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com > No, this is not a bitmask. I'm not actually sure how to explicitely > state it isn't a bitmask, because in my mind any field is not a bitmask > unless it is explicitely stated, so I will use the term numerical. Or maybe the term "enumerated value"? _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Mon Jun 16 10:03:51 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B7AB3A69D3 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 10:03:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8mHrB8orFY-1 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 10:03:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 820D13A69AF for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 10:03:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 972B81C41033 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 10:04:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C592F4400C2 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 10:04:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9159834AC388 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 10:04:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 269BF34AC42E for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 10:04:13 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.71 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 10:04:13 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,653,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="57230577" Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Jun 2008 10:04:10 -0700 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5GH4Ari020098 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 10:04:10 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5GH4AwP025715 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 17:04:10 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 16 Jun 2008 10:04:00 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 10:04:00 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E981CD@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: CAPWAP IESG Review T9 Thread-Index: AcjP0viq5467ANBmQ/+Y/F/Rh5VTKQ== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Jun 2008 17:04:01.0144 (UTC) FILETIME=[F9398F80:01C8CFD2] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review T9 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com All, Here is the IESG Review Comment: T9 - Section 4.4.2 - what is the max size of IEEE 802.3 frames that is being supported? Is IEEE 802.3as supported. Please detail I am proposing the following text: 4.4.2. Data Payload [...] For 802.3 payload frames, the 802.3 frame is encapsulated (excluding the IEEE 802.3 FCS checksum). If the encapsulated frame would exceed the transport layer's MTU, the sender is responsible for fragmentation of the frame, as specified in Section 3.4. The CAPWAP protocol can support IEEE 802.3 frames whose length is defined in the IEEE 802.3as specification [FRAME-EXT]. 17.1. Normative References [...] [FRAME-EXT] IEEE, "IEEE Standard 802.3as-2006", 2006. _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Mon Jun 16 11:01:56 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 729E23A6816 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:01:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mm8NvFbxthIe for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:01:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BC773A6B0F for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:01:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A38521C40FB2 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:02:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C22444002F for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:01:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 580D534AC3AD for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:01:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B82434AC3BD for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:01:53 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.70 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:01:53 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,653,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="41502485" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Jun 2008 11:01:45 -0700 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5GI1igb028986 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:01:44 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5GI1i14021168 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 18:01:44 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:01:44 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:01:43 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E9823E@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T28 Thread-Index: AcjP2wjdh9C2vO7bQi29mNQvKyoYcw== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Jun 2008 18:01:44.0696 (UTC) FILETIME=[09A9A780:01C8CFDB] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T28 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com All, Here is the IESG Review Comment: T28 - Section 4.6.39 - I do not understand the semantics of the value field - what does 'The value associated with the vendor specific element' mean? Is this one byte as the diagram shows, or variable length as indicated by the fact that the length of the message shows >=7? If variable length what is the max length? Here is my proposed changes, and note tha I picked 2048 octets as the maximum length for the vendor specific info: 4.6.39. Vendor Specific Payload [...] Data: Variable length vendor specific information, whose contents and format are proprietary and understood based on the Element ID field. This field MUST NOT exceed 2048 octets. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Mon Jun 16 11:06:46 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE2913A6949 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:06:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.591 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.591 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.008, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WegfM9bXxFKE for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:06:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C716B3A681A for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:06:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06C321C41004 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:07:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BFBF4400AA for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:07:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA42734AC38F for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:07:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B885B34AC3B2 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:07:03 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:07:02 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,653,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="131504292" Received: from unknown (HELO nj300815-nj-erheast.avaya.com) ([198.152.6.5]) by co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 16 Jun 2008 14:06:59 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,653,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="212519518" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by nj300815-nj-erheast-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 16 Jun 2008 14:06:59 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 20:06:37 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E9823E@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T28 Thread-Index: AcjP2wjdh9C2vO7bQi29mNQvKyoYcwAAKpDQ References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E9823E@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T28 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK with me. (although I am not crazy about fields that carry vendor specific information in standards because they create no multivendor interoperability) Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 9:02 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T28 > > All, > > Here is the IESG Review Comment: > > T28 - Section 4.6.39 - I do not understand the semantics > of the value field - what > does 'The value associated with the vendor specific > element' mean? Is this one byte > as the diagram shows, or variable length as indicated by > the fact that the length > of the message shows >=7? If variable length what is the > max length? > > Here is my proposed changes, and note tha I picked 2048 > octets as the maximum length for the vendor specific info: > > > 4.6.39. Vendor Specific Payload > [...] > > Data: Variable length vendor specific information, whose > contents and format are proprietary and understood > based on the Element ID field. This field MUST NOT > exceed 2048 octets. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Mon Jun 16 11:10:46 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A28033A6765 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:10:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.591 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.591 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.008, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1jKy6We0mzlg for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:10:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A2FF3A68AF for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:10:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B48C143A250 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:11:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2287444002F for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:11:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAE1D34AC3C4 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:11:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 923AF34AC3E0 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:11:12 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com (nj300815-nj-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.12.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:11:12 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,653,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="123631245" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 16 Jun 2008 14:11:09 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,653,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="219302939" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 16 Jun 2008 14:11:08 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 20:10:53 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98168@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T14 Thread-Index: AcjPLHdhTR+F4WByRSqzJvoOJYfcTgAnpOtgAARQJqA= References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98138@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98168@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T14 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 7:07 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T14 > > This should have been T14 > > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 8:36 AM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment > > All, > > The IESG Review Comment says > > T14 - Sections 4.6.2, 4.6.3 - what is the max number of IP > addresses > on the two > lists? > > Here is the proposed text. I picked a maximum number that > seems big enough in my personal opinion. > > > 4.6.2. AC IPv4 List > [...] > > AC IP Address: An array of 32-bit integers containing > AC IPv4 Addresses, containing no more than 1024 > addresses. > > 4.6.3. AC IPv6 List > [...] > > AC IP Address: An array of 128-bit integers containing > AC IPv6 Addresses, containing no more than 1024 > addresses. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Mon Jun 16 11:11:31 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 958833A69A9 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:11:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.592 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.592 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.007, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r-JTj+R2tgGn for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:11:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0E323A6765 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:11:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E86E41C41009 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:12:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B663F44002F for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:11:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 892DC34AC3BD for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:11:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D112D34AC3AD for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:11:54 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com (nj300815-nj-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.12.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:11:54 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,653,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="123631333" Received: from unknown (HELO nj300815-nj-erheast.avaya.com) ([198.152.6.5]) by nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 16 Jun 2008 14:11:54 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,653,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="212521720" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by nj300815-nj-erheast-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 16 Jun 2008 14:11:54 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 20:11:48 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98147@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T19 Thread-Index: AcjPMMu852BW1hyNTye1SUgnqWdM6QAloRYwAAVG9mA= References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98147@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T19 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 6:41 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T19 > > All, > > Here is the IESG Review Comment: > > T19 - Section 4.6.16 - what is the max size of the Data > field in the Data transfer > Data message? > > I have addressed the comment by imposing a maximum length of 65535. > > > > 4.6.16. Data Transfer Data > [...] > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Data Type | Data Length | Data .... > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > [...] > > Data Length: Length of data field, with a maximum size of 65535. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Mon Jun 16 11:13:21 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99A213A681A for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:13:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.592 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.592 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.007, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jtqkn6vdn-eu for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:13:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C39C93A68AE for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:13:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A2AD43A346 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:14:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 989D04400C1 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:13:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4219234AC3D4 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:13:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ADD634AC3AD for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:13:52 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com (nj300815-nj-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.12.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:13:51 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,653,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="123631578" Received: from unknown (HELO nj300815-nj-erheast.avaya.com) ([198.152.6.5]) by nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 16 Jun 2008 14:13:50 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,653,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="212522381" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by nj300815-nj-erheast-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 16 Jun 2008 14:13:50 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 20:13:34 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98146@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T12 Thread-Index: AcjPELu416c4qMlBRmmB9tpGnVSLxQAtoMNwAAVS24A= References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98146@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T12 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com I won't fight this to death but I still find it confusing. Writhing 4 in a field which can be either 4 or 5 may confuse other as well. What about 4/5? Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 6:40 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T12 > > All, > > The following is the IESG Comment Review: > > T12 - Section 4.6.1 - in the AC Descriptor protocol > diagram delete =4 from the Type > filed (it can be 4 or 5 as I understand) > > Actually, the reason why this is part of the diagram is > because both 4 and 5 MUST be included (as described in the > field description). So in order to make this much clearer, we > have included this in the diagram. > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Mon Jun 16 11:13:52 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3BB83A68AF for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:13:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.592 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.592 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.007, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x343+FPLDE5C for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:13:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 169263A6765 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:13:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30D261C40F70 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:14:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C0274400BF for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:14:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E78534AC3B0 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:14:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7982634AC3E9 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:14:14 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:14:14 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,653,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="131505356" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 16 Jun 2008 14:14:14 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,653,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="219304004" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 16 Jun 2008 14:14:13 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 20:13:59 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98133@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T7 Thread-Index: AcjPDLGByaUXtwuDSOGnV4CuYLXnrgA0Altw References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98133@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T7 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 6:36 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T7 > > All, > > The following IESG review comment was received: > > T7 - Section 4.3, pag 49 - what is the max size of this > Data field in the Wireless > specific information. Is it 255 as the length is coded in > 8 bit or something else? > Please detail. > > I am proposing changing the text to: > > > Length: The 8 bit field contains the length of the data > field, with a maximum size of 255. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Mon Jun 16 11:24:18 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F1B93A69D3 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:24:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.592 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.592 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.007, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MoyNJ7VT+dlT for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:24:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBA243A6AB6 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:24:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05B0943A250 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:24:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 036634400AF for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:24:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B505F34AC3AB for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:24:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A9E534AC3C8 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:24:43 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Sender first seen 00:21:06 ago / dynamic or unknown reverse DNS) Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:24:42 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,653,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="111436649" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 16 Jun 2008 14:15:03 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,653,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="219304213" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 16 Jun 2008 14:15:02 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 20:14:46 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E9813B@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T18 Thread-Index: AcjPMFORyY1/kW15S8S8M8utx3CtEAArIINg References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E9813B@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T18 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 6:36 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T18 > > All, > > Here is the IESG Review Comment: > > T18 - Section 4.6.8 - what is the max length of the VLAN > Name? As nothing is said I > assume the max value currently supported but IEEE 802.1Q > but it's better to be > specific > > I agree with the comment on the maximum VLAN name, but since > the message element does not reference an actual VLAN ID, > there is no reason to reference the maximum VLAN number. > > My proposed text: > > > 4.6.8. Add Station > [...] > VLAN Name: An optional variable length UTF-8 encoded string, > with a maximum length of 512 octets, containing the VLAN > Name on which the WTP is to locally bridge user data. > Note this field is only valid with WTPs configured in > Local MAC mode. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Mon Jun 16 11:29:54 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 507563A6A3A for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:29:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.592 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.592 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.007, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3JMoXjvhdGti for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:29:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 763AF3A6AE4 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:29:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8ED9E1C40FF7 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:30:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59D834400B4 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:30:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E261634AC375 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:30:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDF2334AC3AD for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:30:14 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Sender first seen 00:26:37 ago / dynamic or unknown reverse DNS) Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:30:14 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,653,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="111438690" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 16 Jun 2008 14:30:12 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,654,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="219310752" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 16 Jun 2008 14:30:11 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 20:30:09 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98134@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review T8 Thread-Index: AcjPDWtLV7rPD99kRF+u8++xEtZCwQA0Y7vw References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98134@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review T8 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 6:36 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review T8 > > All, > > The following is the IESG Review comment: > > T8 - Session 4.4.1, pag. 50 - what is the max size of the > Message Element field? > Please detail > > I am proposing changing the text to the following: > > > Message Element Length: The 8 bit Length field indicates the > number of bytes following the CAPWAP Header, with a > maximum size of 65535. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Mon Jun 16 11:30:29 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 377F23A6832 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:30:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.592 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.592 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.007, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G7xn-Y7+mppt for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:30:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A84A3A69D0 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:30:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9346B4312EB for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:31:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13E554400BA for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:30:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E192634AC3B0 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:30:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B067734AC3C8 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:30:52 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com (nj300815-nj-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.12.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:30:51 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,653,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="123633997" Received: from unknown (HELO nj300815-nj-erheast.avaya.com) ([198.152.6.5]) by nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 16 Jun 2008 14:30:51 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,654,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="212530069" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by nj300815-nj-erheast-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 16 Jun 2008 14:30:50 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 20:30:49 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98137@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T13 Thread-Index: AcjPEZPFbd7U4A1MRVu5HnzXgixlQAAzYAHg References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98137@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T13 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 6:36 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T13 > > All, > > Here is the IESG Review Comment: > > T13 - Section 4.6.1 - please define the max length of the > vendor specific field > information > > The field is 16 bits, but it seems excessive to allow for the > field to be 65535, so I am setting the maximum to 1024 bytes. > > > Length: Length of vendor specific encoding of AC > information, with > a maximum > size of 1024. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Mon Jun 16 11:30:59 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E78213A69D3 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:30:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.592 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.592 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.007, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eW-Nfw63Gv3R for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:30:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05EDD3A69D0 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:30:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42F261C41010 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:31:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 183194400BA for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:31:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD25934AC41A for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:31:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB65B34AC403 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:31:20 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com (nj300815-nj-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.12.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:31:20 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,653,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="123634050" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 16 Jun 2008 14:31:19 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,654,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="219311718" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 16 Jun 2008 14:31:19 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 20:31:17 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E9813C@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T20 Thread-Index: AcjPMgglsZvRXFb9Sfa7Aajmt+ENsQArRy9Q References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E9813C@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T20 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 6:36 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T20 > > All, > > Here is the IESG Review Comment: > > T20 - Section 4.6.16, 4.6.17, 4.6.33, 4.6.36, 4.6.42, > 4.6.43 - why do the encoded > values start from 1 and not from 0? > > There is actually no reason why the values did not start at > zero. I will make the changes to renumber the values to start > at zero (0). The only one I disagree with is 4.6.43, because > this is a bit field, but I noticed that the text did not > explicitely call for a bit field, so I also made the necessary change. > > > 4.6.16. Data Transfer Data > [...] > Data Type: An 8-bit value the type of information being > sent. The > following values are supported: > > 0 - WTP Crash Data > > 1 - WTP Memory Dump > > 4.6.17. Data Transfer Mode > [...] > Data Type: An 8-bit value the type of information being > requested. > The following values are supported: > > 0 - WTP Crash Data > > 1 - WTP Memory Dump > > 4.6.33. Radio Administrative State > [...] > Admin State: An 8-bit value representing the administrative state > of the radio. The default value for the Admin State field is > listed in Section 4.8.1. The following values are supported: > > 0 - Enabled > > 1 - Disabled > > 4.6.36. Returned Message Element > [...] > Reason: The reason why the configuration in the offending message > element could not be applied by the WTP. > > 0 - Unknown Message Element > > 1 - Unsupported Message Element > > 2 - Unknown Message Element Value > > 3 - Unsupported Message Element Value > > 4.6.42. WTP Fallback > [...] > > Mode: The 8-bit value indicates the status of automatic CAPWAP > fallback on the WTP. When enabled, if the WTP detects that its > primary AC is available, and that the WTP is not > connected to the > primary AC, the WTP SHOULD automatically disconnect from its > current AC and reconnect to its primary AC. If > disabled, the WTP > will only reconnect to its primary AC through manual > intervention > (e.g., through the Reset Request message). The default > value for > this field is specified in Section 4.8.10. The following values > are supported: > > 0 - Enabled > > 1 - Disabled > > Frame Tunnel Mode: The Frame Tunnel mode specifies the tunneling > modes for station data that are supported by the WTP. > The following > values are supported for this bit field: > > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Mon Jun 16 11:32:02 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B30433A6A57 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:32:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.592 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.592 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.007, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BGyB8CZAUIVe for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:32:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE27A3A68AD for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:32:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15DB01C4101D for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:32:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 988C64400AF for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:32:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92A0E34AC3A0 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:32:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1896E34AC3F5 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:32:27 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Sender first seen 00:28:50 ago / dynamic or unknown reverse DNS) Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:32:26 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,653,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="111438961" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 16 Jun 2008 14:32:25 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,654,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="219312523" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 16 Jun 2008 14:32:23 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 20:32:22 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98132@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T6 Thread-Index: AcjPC6sIqcK3O7B1S2illouweQiqbQA05eyQ References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98132@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T6 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK with me and thanks for letting me understand the issue. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 6:36 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T6 > > Here is the IESG Issue: > > T6 - Section 4.3, page 48 - 'This is useful in packets > sent from the WTP to the AC, > when the native wireless frame format is converted to > 802.3 by the WTP.'. Please > explain why (is Radio MAC address useful)? Also, > s/802.3/IEEE 802.3 format/ > > I am proposing the changed second sentence in the following > text to address this issue: > > > Radio MAC Address: This optional field contains the MAC address of > the radio receiving the packet. Because the native wireless > frame format to IEEE 802.3 format causes the MAC address of the > WTP's radio to be lost, this field allows the address to be > communicated to the AC. This field is only present if the > 'M' bit is set. The HLEN field assumes 4 byte alignment, and > this field MUST be padded with zeroes (0x00) if it is not 4 byte > aligned. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Mon Jun 16 11:32:42 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DD363A6A57 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:32:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.592 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.592 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.007, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wpuX1Ed1wQAv for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:32:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1C6D3A6A3A for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:32:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF1FB1C40FF4 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:33:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A1D04400AF for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:33:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3C7D34AC3C8 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:33:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0FB434AC39A for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:32:58 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Sender first seen 00:29:21 ago / dynamic or unknown reverse DNS) Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:32:58 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,653,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="111439011" Received: from unknown (HELO nj300815-nj-erheast.avaya.com) ([198.152.6.5]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 16 Jun 2008 14:32:57 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,654,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="212531584" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by nj300815-nj-erheast-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 16 Jun 2008 14:32:56 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 20:32:55 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E9813A@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T17 Thread-Index: AcjPLzVAlC/5rErySsWdtc4xv7fXjwAsCo/Q References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E9813A@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T17 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 6:36 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T17 > > All, > > Here is the IESG Review Comment: > > T17 - Section 4.6.7, 4.6.9 - what is the max length of the > MAC address field? (i.e. > how many addresses at most on the ACL MAC list?) > > I have addressed this issue by explicitely stating that only > the formats, and lengths, of the two known EUI > specifications. I have also addressed many other references > to MAC Address lengths throughout the spec. > > > 4.6.7. Add MAC ACL Entry > [...] > > Length: The length of the MAC Address field. The > following formats, and lengths, are supported > [EUI-48] and [EUI-64]. > > 4.6.8. Add Station > [...] > > Length: The length of the MAC Address field. The > following formats, and lengths, are supported > [EUI-48] and [EUI-64]. > > 4.6.9. Add Static MAC ACL Entry > [...] > > Length: The length of the MAC Address field. The > following formats, and lengths, are supported > [EUI-48] and [EUI-64]. > > 4.6.18. Decryption Error Report > [...] > > Length: The length of the MAC Address field. The > following formats, and lengths, are supported > [EUI-48] and [EUI-64]. > > 4.6.20. Delete MAC ACL Entry > [...] > > Length: The length of the MAC Address field. The > following formats, and lengths, are supported > [EUI-48] and [EUI-64]. > > 4.6.20. Delete MAC ACL Entry > [...] > > Length: The length of the MAC Address field. The > following formats, and lengths, are supported > [EUI-48] and [EUI-64]. > > 4.6.24. Duplicate IPv4 Address > [...] > > Length: The length of the MAC Address field. The > following formats, and lengths, are supported > [EUI-48] and [EUI-64]. > > 4.6.25. Duplicate IPv6 Address > [...] > > Length: The length of the MAC Address field. The > following formats, and lengths, are supported > [EUI-48] and [EUI-64]. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Mon Jun 16 11:33:05 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF6B93A69F2 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:33:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.593 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.593 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id if-zpCggiTb4 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:33:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 044073A68AD for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:33:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48B551C4101A for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:33:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60D054400B4 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:33:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEC9834AC3B2 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:33:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC62B34AC375 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:33:14 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Sender first seen 00:29:37 ago / dynamic or unknown reverse DNS) Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:33:14 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,653,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="111435003" Received: from unknown (HELO nj300815-nj-erheast.avaya.com) ([198.152.6.5]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 16 Jun 2008 14:03:34 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,653,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="212518175" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by nj300815-nj-erheast-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 16 Jun 2008 14:03:33 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 20:02:28 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E981CD@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review T9 Thread-Index: AcjP0viq5467ANBmQ/+Y/F/Rh5VTKQACCNzg References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E981CD@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review T9 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 8:04 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review T9 > > All, > > Here is the IESG Review Comment: > > T9 - Section 4.4.2 - what is the max size of IEEE 802.3 frames that > is being > supported? Is IEEE 802.3as supported. Please detail > > I am proposing the following text: > > > 4.4.2. Data Payload > [...] > > For 802.3 payload frames, the 802.3 frame is encapsulated > (excluding > the IEEE 802.3 FCS checksum). If the encapsulated frame > would exceed > the transport layer's MTU, the sender is responsible for > fragmentation of the frame, as specified in Section 3.4. The CAPWAP > protocol can support IEEE 802.3 frames whose length is defined in > the IEEE 802.3as specification [FRAME-EXT]. > > 17.1. Normative References > [...] > [FRAME-EXT] > IEEE, "IEEE Standard 802.3as-2006", 2006. > > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Mon Jun 16 11:38:18 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60FB43A67DF for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:38:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.593 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.593 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WzUliJ0Uhm6A for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:38:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 792613A69F2 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:38:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA9B21C40F97 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:38:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CF3D4400B4 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:38:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAD8E34AC3C5 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:38:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEA8734AC39A for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:38:44 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Sender first seen 00:35:07 ago / dynamic or unknown reverse DNS) Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:38:44 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,653,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="111435879" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 16 Jun 2008 14:09:28 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,653,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="219302548" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 16 Jun 2008 14:09:26 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 20:09:00 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98131@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T5 Thread-Index: AcjPCp14qviMU/+ZRc2CJUKTfJjQ4gA0TSug References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98131@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T5 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK with me, with the terminology suggested by David Nelson - say clearly these are enumerated values. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 6:36 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T5 > > Here is the IESG Issue: > > T5 - Section 4.3, pag 47 - As I understand the 5 bit field > encodes 32 possible > wireless bindings (i.e. it's not a bit mask). If true it > would be good to make this > explicit. My question is whether there is any reason to > start with value 1 and not > with value 0? Assuming this is already deployed, will 0 be > a value to use, or does > it have any special significance? > > No, this is not a bitmask. I'm not actually sure how to > explicitely state it isn't a bitmask, because in my mind any > field is not a bitmask unless it is explicitely stated, so I > will use the term numerical. > Further, there is no reason why zero cannot be used, so I'll > renumber the fields to start at zero. > > So I am proposing the following text: > > > WBID: A 5 bit numerical field which is the wireless binding > identifier. The numerical identifier will indicate the type > of wireless packet associated with the radio. The following > numerical values are defined: > > 0 - IEEE 802.11 > 1 - IEEE 802.16 > 2 - EPCGlobal > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Mon Jun 16 11:39:09 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BAA13A6816 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:39:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.593 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.593 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5IyOCh7j7v+w for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:39:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 888063A67DF for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:39:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C16371C40F9D for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:39:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D282F4400B4 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:39:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A02FC34AC39A for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:39:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B587934AC3AB for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:39:38 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Sender first seen 00:36:01 ago / dynamic or unknown reverse DNS) Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 11:39:38 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,653,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="111436020" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 16 Jun 2008 14:10:34 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,653,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="219302812" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 16 Jun 2008 14:10:33 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 20:10:23 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98169@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T15 Thread-Index: AcjPLTVEQAnGzPu/Q1yv6xQingNpWQAneBlgAARIQdA= References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98139@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98169@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T15 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 7:08 PM > To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap@frascone.com > Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T15 > > This should have been T15. > > PatC > > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 8:36 AM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T14 > > All, > > Here is the IESG Review Comment: > > T15 - Section 4.6.4, 4,6,5 - what is the max size of the AC names? > > I am proposing the following resolution, and figured that the > proposed maximum size is 512 bytes for an AC name: > > > 4.6.4. AC Name > [...] > > AC Name: A variable length UTF-8 encoded string containing the AC > name, whose maximum size MUST NOT exceed 512 bytes. > > 4.6.5. AC Name with Index > [...] > > AC Name: A variable length UTF-8 encoded string containing the AC > name, whose maximum size MUST NOT exceed 512 bytes. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Mon Jun 16 13:39:47 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 734B528C151 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 13:39:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.593 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.593 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6xWSTzHwXZak for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 13:39:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E244A28C142 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 13:39:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E33D43A2BE for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 13:40:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ABCB4400C7 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 13:40:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C0E234AC463 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 13:40:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E2E434AC46B for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 13:40:10 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com (nj300815-nj-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.12.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 13:40:10 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,654,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="123650587" Received: from unknown (HELO nj300815-nj-erheast.avaya.com) ([198.152.6.5]) by nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 16 Jun 2008 16:40:09 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,654,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="212588259" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by nj300815-nj-erheast-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 16 Jun 2008 16:40:08 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 22:40:08 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98128@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T23 Thread-Index: AcjPM3OoCC/IloCCSCmmumv3wIc6LAAtlKoA References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98128@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T23 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 6:36 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T23 > > All, > > Here is the IESG Review Comment: > > T23 - Section 4.6.26 - what is the unit for the Idle timeout > > This was already specified in section 4.8.5, but I will > include it in this section as well. > > > 4.6.26. Idle Timeout > [...] > Timeout: The current idle timeout, in seconds, to be enforced > by the WTP. The default value for this message element is > specified in Section 4.8.5. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Mon Jun 16 13:40:11 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62C3128C14A for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 13:40:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.593 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.593 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SIloWqs40sTs for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 13:40:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 863E728C142 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 13:40:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B19643A4C4 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 13:40:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92CAF4400C9 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 13:40:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 448E934AC3C2 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 13:40:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5AD534AC3D8 for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 13:40:12 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com (nj300815-nj-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.12.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2008 13:40:11 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,654,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="123650588" Received: from unknown (HELO nj300815-nj-erheast.avaya.com) ([198.152.6.5]) by nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 16 Jun 2008 16:40:10 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,654,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="212588260" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by nj300815-nj-erheast-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 16 Jun 2008 16:40:09 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 22:40:08 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E9812C@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review T27 Thread-Index: AcjPNjfaDwkd/J7aQ3ipk/ZS9z6yFwAs6JYA References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E9812C@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review T27 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 6:36 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review T27 > > All, > > Here is the IESG Review Comment: > > T27 - Section 4.6.36 - what is the max length of the > Message Element field? > > I guess we have to assume that a message element could be > 65535, so I have made the necessary changes: > > > 4.6.36. Returned Message Element > [...] > > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Reason | Length | Message Element... > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > Length: The length of the Message Element field, which MUST > NOT exceed 65535 octets. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Tue Jun 17 05:10:58 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3834C28C16D for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:10:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.593 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.593 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 67i+K5XVvkOy for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:10:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C1CE3A692F for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:10:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2DE24321EC for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:11:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F37F94400A4 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:11:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8CF734AC407 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:11:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7E3A34AC448 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:11:22 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com (nj300815-nj-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.12.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:11:22 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,657,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="123717491" Received: from unknown (HELO nj300815-nj-erheast.avaya.com) ([198.152.6.5]) by nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 17 Jun 2008 08:11:21 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,657,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="212924999" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by nj300815-nj-erheast-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 17 Jun 2008 08:11:20 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:11:19 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E9813E@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] IESG Review Comment T22 Thread-Index: AcjPMvqdllbXE16MT7iJmGcNyGLN6ABP5q2A References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E9813E@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] IESG Review Comment T22 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Let me try to clarify my question. The length field indicates the length of a list of MAC addresses that were detected to be behind duplicate IP addresses (IPv4 and IPv6 respectively). Why would this length be anything but 12 (i.e. 2 MAC addresses?) - do we need to support more the detection of more than two addresses? - why would length of MAC addresses behind IPv4 addresses be different than the length of the addresses behind IPv6 addresses? Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 6:36 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] IESG Review Comment T22 > > All, > > Here is the IESG Review Comment: > > T22 - Sections 4.2.24, 4.2.25 - why are the length field defined as > >= 12, and >= > 24 respectively. Is this triplicate addresses? Or more? > And if such cases exist, is > this important to detect and report all in one message? > > I'm not sure that the comment makes sense since the length of > the field is correct. In both cases we assume a minimum MAC > Address length of 6 octets. I believe this comment is invalid. > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Tue Jun 17 05:11:14 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4E5B28C15E for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:11:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.593 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.593 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id naAuEd6jB2oD for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:11:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A77D3A69EF for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:11:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B206643225F for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:11:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 844474400A5 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:11:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49F7A34AC484 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:11:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63A7634AC407 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:11:44 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com (nj300815-nj-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.12.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:11:44 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,657,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="123717535" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 17 Jun 2008 08:11:43 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,657,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="219691328" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 17 Jun 2008 08:11:43 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:11:39 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E9813D@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T21 Thread-Index: AcjPMpmu/oBw+fpJRTK2LvXKpm8MeABQKuTQ References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E9813D@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T21 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 6:36 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T21 > > All, > > Here is the IESG Review Comment: > > T21 - Section 4.6.18, 4.6.20 - what is the max number of > entries in the array (and > thus the max length of the respective MAC Address fields)? > > I have made the necessary changes, based on choosing a > maximum number of 1024. > > > 4.6.18. Decryption Error Report > [...] > Num of Entries: The number of instances of the Type/MAC Addresses > fields in the array. This field MUST NOT exceed the > value of 1024. > > 4.6.20. Delete MAC ACL Entry > [...] > Num of Entries: The number of instances of the Type/MAC Addresses > fields in the array. This field MUST NOT exceed the > value of 1024. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Tue Jun 17 05:17:46 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB97A3A6A0D for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:17:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.593 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.593 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FY+UbIl4zw1b for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:17:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEAA73A67B3 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:17:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F2D443227D for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:18:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 587604400A4 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:18:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E2FC34AC448 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:18:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C86F334AC477 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:18:18 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com (nj300815-nj-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.12.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:18:18 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,657,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="123718426" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 17 Jun 2008 08:18:18 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,657,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="219694958" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 17 Jun 2008 08:18:17 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:18:16 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E9812A@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T25 Thread-Index: AcjPNTZdrbg7Q8ReTYadhcoWKxqufwBPvlNA References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E9812A@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T25 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Yes, sorry for the confusion. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 6:36 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T25 > > All, > > Here is the IESG Review Comment: > > T25 - Section 4.6.29 - what is the max length of the Value field? > > I suspect the commentor really meant 4.6.28, which was > addressed by comment T24. This is therefore a duplicate > entry, and will be marked as invalid. > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Tue Jun 17 05:18:23 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 304CB3A6A0C for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:18:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.593 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.593 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RzHdegmlY0uG for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:18:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F93A3A67B3 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:18:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04C504323DA for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:19:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 776AF4400A4 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:18:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54A5C34AC44C for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:18:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA24234AC472 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:18:57 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:18:57 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,657,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="131600452" Received: from unknown (HELO nj300815-nj-erheast.avaya.com) ([198.152.6.5]) by co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 17 Jun 2008 08:18:56 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,657,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="212928909" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by nj300815-nj-erheast-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 17 Jun 2008 08:18:50 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:18:49 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98139@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T14 Thread-Index: AcjPLTVEQAnGzPu/Q1yv6xQingNpWQBRxFHA References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98139@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T14 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 6:36 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T14 > > All, > > Here is the IESG Review Comment: > > T15 - Section 4.6.4, 4,6,5 - what is the max size of the AC names? > > I am proposing the following resolution, and figured that the > proposed maximum size is 512 bytes for an AC name: > > > 4.6.4. AC Name > [...] > > AC Name: A variable length UTF-8 encoded string containing the AC > name, whose maximum size MUST NOT exceed 512 bytes. > > 4.6.5. AC Name with Index > [...] > > AC Name: A variable length UTF-8 encoded string containing the AC > name, whose maximum size MUST NOT exceed 512 bytes. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Tue Jun 17 05:18:59 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 307693A6A0C for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:18:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.593 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.593 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mgexNXacd7tW for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:18:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23E5728C15E for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:18:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDDF943262B for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:19:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69CD84400A4 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:19:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A6AD34AC3AB for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:19:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AE6A34AC483 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:19:33 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:19:32 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,657,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="131600538" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 17 Jun 2008 08:19:25 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,657,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="219695221" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 17 Jun 2008 08:19:25 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:19:24 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98136@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T11 Thread-Index: AcjPEG4+TAjLFrCtQgOKnj1JL/mH2ABY+10A References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98136@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T11 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 6:36 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T11 > > All, > > The following is the IESG Comment Review: > > T11 - Section 4.6 - Please define the CAPWAP Message > elements Type Values that are > currently TBD > > > I have made the necessary changes, but given that it touches > a significant amount of text, I will only include the table > here that show the new number assignment: > > > AC Descriptor 1 > AC IPv4 List 2 > AC IPv6 List 3 > AC Name 4 > AC Name with Index 5 > AC Timestamp 6 > Add MAC ACL Entry 7 > Add Station 8 > Add Static MAC ACL Entry 9 > CAPWAP Control IPV4 Address 10 > CAPWAP Control IPV6 Address 11 > CAPWAP Local IPV4 Address 12 > CAPWAP Local IPV6 Address 13 > CAPWAP Timers 14 > CAPWAP Transport Protocol 15 > Data Transfer Data 16 > Data Transfer Mode 17 > Decryption Error Report 18 > Decryption Error Report Period 19 > Delete MAC ACL Entry 20 > Delete Station 21 > Delete Static MAC ACL Entry 22 > Discovery Type 23 > Duplicate IPv4 Address 24 > Duplicate IPv6 Address 25 > Idle Timeout 26 > Image Data 27 > Image Identifier 28 > Image Info 29 > Initiate Download 30 > Location Data 31 > Maximum Message Length 32 > Radio Administrative State 33 > Radio Operational State 34 > Result Code 35 > Returned Message Element 36 > Session ID 37 > Statistics Timer 38 > Vendor Specific Payload 39 > WTP Board Data 40 > WTP Descriptor 41 > WTP Fallback 42 > WTP Frame Tunnel Mode 43 > WTP IPv4 IP Address 44 > WTP IPv6 IP Address 45 > WTP MAC Type 46 > WTP Name 47 > WTP Operational Statistics 48 > WTP Radio Statistics 49 > WTP Reboot Statistics 50 > WTP Static IP Address Information 51 > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Tue Jun 17 05:19:33 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D979728C0DE for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:19:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.593 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.593 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dZu9Kavsm92q for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:19:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 344923A6A0C for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:19:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C53BE432620 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:20:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 804D14400A4 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:20:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F4A434AC3AB for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:20:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83B6434AC44C for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:20:01 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:20:01 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,657,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="131600704" Received: from unknown (HELO nj300815-nj-erheast.avaya.com) ([198.152.6.5]) by co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 17 Jun 2008 08:20:01 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,657,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="212929356" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by nj300815-nj-erheast-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 17 Jun 2008 08:20:00 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:19:55 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98129@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] IESG Review Comment T24 Thread-Index: AcjPNNEq55gvrj7JSaOvrsKd320B3QBP50yg References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98129@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] IESG Review Comment T24 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 6:36 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] IESG Review Comment T24 > > All, > > Here is the IESG Review Comment: > > T24 - Sections 4.6.27, 4.6.28 - should not these two > messages include length of the > Value fields? > > Originally, this was not included, because it could be inferred. > However, I can imagine a software architecture where the > packet size is not known when the message elements are > parsed. So I have added them: > > > 4.6.27. Image Data > [...] > > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Data Type | Data Length | Data .... > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > [...] > > Data: Length of data field, with a maximum size of 1024. > > Data: The Image Data field contains up to 1024 > characters. If the > block being sent is the last one, the Opcode is set to > 2. The AC > MAY opt to abort the data transfer by setting the Opcode to 5. > When the Opcode is 5, the Value field has a zero length. > > 4.6.28. Image Identifier > [...] > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Vendor Identifier | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Value Length | Data... > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > [...] > > Data: Length of data field, with a maximum size of 65535. > > Data: A variable length UTF-8 encoded string containing the > firmware > identifier to be run on the WTP. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Tue Jun 17 05:20:17 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A54F23A67B3 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:20:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.593 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.593 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RY843fHjajKW for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:20:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F17743A6AD3 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:20:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9505C432167 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:20:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76F724400A4 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:20:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5698934AC47F for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:20:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84D6034AC44C for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:20:47 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:20:47 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,657,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="131600806" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 17 Jun 2008 08:20:44 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,657,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="219695575" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 17 Jun 2008 08:20:43 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:20:42 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98135@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T10 Thread-Index: AcjPD0aR/vM05wFrQNubtiXz/xrb3QBZUPyg References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98135@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T10 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 6:36 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T10 > > All, > > The following is the IESG Review Comment: > > T10 - Section 4.5.1.1 - it is not explicitly said whether > the CAPWAP control > messages in the table at page 54 apply for any wireless technology. > If true, why is > only a value for IEEE 802.11 mentioned in this > specification? In my opinion there > is a need to clarify and to take out the IEEE 802.11 > value, which should be > mentioned in the technology binding document. > > There was actually no reason why the IEEE 802.11 IANA > Enterprise Number was mentioned in this section, so I have > removed it, and cleaned up the text a little bit. I've > checked the CAPWAP IEEE 802.11 binding spec, and it already > includes its IANA Enterprise Number, so no changes are > required to that spec. I am therefore proposing the following text: > > > 4.5.1.1. Message Type > > The Message Type field identifies the function of the > CAPWAP control > message. To provide extensibility, the Message Type field > is comprised > of an IANA Enterprise Number [RFC3232] and an enterprise specific > message type number. The first three octets contain the > IANA Enterprise > Number in network byte order, with zero used for CAPWAP > base protocol > (this specification) defined message types. The last octet is the > enterprise specific message type number, which has a range > from 0 to 255. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Tue Jun 17 05:21:18 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F26753A67D7 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:21:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.594 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.594 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.005, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JoDKMneenU6Q for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:21:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CF553A67B3 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:21:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44E18432664 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:21:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0D804400A4 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:21:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C83F934AC3AB for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:21:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22B0434AC448 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:21:45 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com (nj300815-nj-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.12.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:21:44 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,657,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="123719055" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 17 Jun 2008 08:21:44 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,657,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="219696071" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 17 Jun 2008 08:21:43 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:21:42 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E9812F@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T2 Thread-Index: AcjPCKNvAI06dDyLRae0zdkSV6CbCABbANCg References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E9812F@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T2 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Yes, this makes the goal more clear, OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 6:36 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T2 > > All, > > The issue provided by the IESG states: > T2 - Section 1.1 - Layer 2 and radio technology > independence and extensibility > seem to me to be major goals of CAPWAP to the same extent > as the three goals > already mentioned. > > I believe the text already describes this in the third goal: > > 3. To provide a generic encapsulation and transport mechanism, > enabling the CAPWAP protocol to be applied to many access point > types in the future, via a specific wireless binding. > > However, given the reviewer did not catch on to this, perhaps > it isn't clear enough, so I am proposing the following text: > > 3. To provide an extensible protocol that is not bound to > a specific wireless technology. Extensibility is provided > via a generic encapsulation and transport mechanism, > enabling the CAPWAP protocol to be applied to many access > point types in the future, via a specific wireless binding. > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Tue Jun 17 05:21:51 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1C6A3A6874 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:21:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.594 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.594 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.005, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VKJL+LaUPzAm for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:21:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 187263A67D7 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:21:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B351D43264E for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:22:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA9274400A4 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:22:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 866DC34AC47C for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:22:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 751F334AC477 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:22:23 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:22:23 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,657,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="131601364" Received: from unknown (HELO nj300815-nj-erheast.avaya.com) ([198.152.6.5]) by co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 17 Jun 2008 08:22:22 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,657,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="212930108" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by nj300815-nj-erheast-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 17 Jun 2008 08:22:22 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:22:21 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98130@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T4 Thread-Index: AcjPCZaOgc4e9HxwT8O9DdpIk/hqgwBay4iw References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98130@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T4 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 6:36 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T4 > > The following is the issue provided by the IESG: > > T4 - Section 2.3.1, page 25, Configure to Reset - it is > not clear what 'reset the > connection' means, this state needs clarification, for > example what is the > difference / relationship to DTLS teardown > > Although the actual Reset command provides much more detail, > I am proposing adding the last sentence to the 'Configure to > Reset' state transition description: > > Configure to Reset (h): This state transition is used to reset the > connection either due to an error during the > configuration phase, > or when the WTP determines it needs to reset in order > for the new > configuration to take effect. The CAPWAP Reset command > is used to > indicate to the peer that it will initiate a DTLS teardown. > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Tue Jun 17 05:22:17 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D431E3A69EF for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:22:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.594 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.594 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.005, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2i1bF6ISqu9x for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:22:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68F263A692F for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:22:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EA09432693 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:23:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC62C4400A4 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:22:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B36A934AC477 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:22:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8DA734AC448 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:22:50 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:22:50 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,657,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="131601425" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 17 Jun 2008 08:22:45 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,657,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="219696887" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 17 Jun 2008 08:22:44 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:22:43 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E9812B@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review T26 Thread-Index: AcjPNY/yxqR6+dAZR4CWlpiqfFhCXQBP0KPg References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E9812B@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review T26 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 6:36 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review T26 > > All, > > Here is the IESG Review Comment: > > T26 - Section 4.6.31 - what is the max length of the > location field? > > I have picked a number in the proposed text below: > > > 4.6.31. Location Data > [...] > Location: A non-zero terminated UTF-8 encoded string > containing the > WTP location, whose maximum size MUST NOT exceed 1024. > > > PatC > > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Tue Jun 17 08:49:21 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 075A93A697F for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 08:49:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Qqiiy163rvCf for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 08:49:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C26D23A696F for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 08:49:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3595433D13 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 08:50:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F0A344007E for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 08:49:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8011F34AC407 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 08:49:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2908B34AC43E for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 08:49:47 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from exchange.tm.thingmagic.com (vpn.thingmagic.com [204.9.221.19]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 08:49:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.36.0.26] (76.24.195.210) by exchange.tm.thingmagic.com (10.0.0.9) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.278.0; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 11:49:42 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98131@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98131@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Message-ID: From: Margaret Wasserman Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 11:49:38 -0400 To: Pat Calhoun X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753.1) Cc: capwap@frascone.com Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T5 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Hi Pat, I agree with your answer -- this is not a bitmask. But, I'd personally prefer that we _not_ renumber the fields at this point. If we do renumber them, this will make -11 incompatible with -10 in a way that I don't feel is justified by the benefit. Instead, I'd personally prefer that you list 0 as "reserved for future use" and make it clear in the IANA considerations section that value 4-31 are available for IANA allocation. There are already implementations of CAPWAP, and EPCglobal is planning an interoperability event in July (for the base CAPWAP spec and the EPCglobal DCI specification), so I think it is too late to start renumbering fields without an important technical reason to do so. Margaret On Jun 16, 2008, at 11:35 AM, Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) wrote: > Here is the IESG Issue: > > T5 - Section 4.3, pag 47 - As I understand the 5 bit field > encodes 32 > possible > wireless bindings (i.e. it's not a bit mask). If true it would be > good to make this > explicit. My question is whether there is any reason to start with > value 1 and not > with value 0? Assuming this is already deployed, will 0 be a > value to > use, or does > it have any special significance? > > No, this is not a bitmask. I'm not actually sure how to explicitely > state it isn't a bitmask, because in my mind any field is not a > bitmask > unless it is explicitely stated, so I will use the term numerical. > Further, there is no reason why zero cannot be used, so I'll renumber > the fields to start at zero. > > So I am proposing the following text: > > > WBID: A 5 bit numerical field which is the wireless binding > identifier. The numerical identifier will indicate the type > of wireless packet associated with the radio. The following > numerical values are defined: > > 0 - IEEE 802.11 > 1 - IEEE 802.16 > 2 - EPCGlobal > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Tue Jun 17 08:51:41 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8C143A6934 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 08:51:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k9hMT87wTHiJ for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 08:51:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55B863A68C3 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 08:51:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58A88433DA6 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 08:52:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 721824400A5 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 08:52:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B42834AC448 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 08:52:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B88A34AC3BC for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 08:51:59 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from exchange.tm.thingmagic.com (vpn.thingmagic.com [204.9.221.19]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 08:51:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.36.0.26] (76.24.195.210) by exchange.tm.thingmagic.com (10.0.0.9) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.278.0; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 11:51:58 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98129@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98129@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Message-ID: <27CB5D32-493A-474F-942E-A18B9C72E123@thingmagic.com> From: Margaret Wasserman Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 11:51:55 -0400 To: Pat Calhoun X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753.1) Cc: capwap@frascone.com Subject: Re: [Capwap] IESG Review Comment T24 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com I'm personally not wild about changing the packet formats at this point, but there does appear to be a technical justification for this change... Are there actually systems on which you wouldn't know the packet size at this layer, though? Or is this just a theoretical technical justification? Margaret On Jun 16, 2008, at 11:35 AM, Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) wrote: > All, > > Here is the IESG Review Comment: > > T24 - Sections 4.6.27, 4.6.28 - should not these two messages > include > length of the > Value fields? > > Originally, this was not included, because it could be inferred. > However, I can imagine a software architecture where the packet > size is > not known when the message elements are parsed. So I have added them: > > > 4.6.27. Image Data > [...] > > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Data Type | Data Length | Data .... > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > [...] > > Data: Length of data field, with a maximum size of 1024. > > Data: The Image Data field contains up to 1024 characters. If > the > block being sent is the last one, the Opcode is set to 2. > The AC > MAY opt to abort the data transfer by setting the Opcode to 5. > When the Opcode is 5, the Value field has a zero length. > > 4.6.28. Image Identifier > [...] > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Vendor Identifier | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Value Length | Data... > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > [...] > > Data: Length of data field, with a maximum size of 65535. > > Data: A variable length UTF-8 encoded string containing the > firmware > identifier to be run on the WTP. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Tue Jun 17 08:53:50 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F08B93A6932 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 08:53:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nF+KPJPXf1SJ for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 08:53:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 006C63A68C3 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 08:53:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 007AC433DCD for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 08:54:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E67D74400A4 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 08:54:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A8B134AC4A1 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 08:54:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 978F734AC49E for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 08:54:11 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from exchange.tm.thingmagic.com (vpn.thingmagic.com [204.9.221.19]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 08:54:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.36.0.26] (76.24.195.210) by exchange.tm.thingmagic.com (10.0.0.9) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.278.0; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 11:54:10 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E9813C@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E9813C@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Message-ID: From: Margaret Wasserman Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 11:54:08 -0400 To: Pat Calhoun X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753.1) Cc: capwap@frascone.com Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T20 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Again, I do not see any value in renumbering fields at this point. We can always use 0 later if we run out... Margaret On Jun 16, 2008, at 11:35 AM, Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) wrote: > All, > > Here is the IESG Review Comment: > > T20 - Section 4.6.16, 4.6.17, 4.6.33, 4.6.36, 4.6.42, 4.6.43 - > why do > the encoded > values start from 1 and not from 0? > > There is actually no reason why the values did not start at zero. I > will > make the changes to renumber the values to start at zero (0). The only > one I disagree with is 4.6.43, because this is a bit field, but I > noticed that the text did not explicitely call for a bit field, so I > also made the necessary change. > > > 4.6.16. Data Transfer Data > [...] > Data Type: An 8-bit value the type of information being sent. > The > following values are supported: > > 0 - WTP Crash Data > > 1 - WTP Memory Dump > > 4.6.17. Data Transfer Mode > [...] > Data Type: An 8-bit value the type of information being > requested. > The following values are supported: > > 0 - WTP Crash Data > > 1 - WTP Memory Dump > > 4.6.33. Radio Administrative State > [...] > Admin State: An 8-bit value representing the administrative state > of the radio. The default value for the Admin State field is > listed in Section 4.8.1. The following values are supported: > > 0 - Enabled > > 1 - Disabled > > 4.6.36. Returned Message Element > [...] > Reason: The reason why the configuration in the offending message > element could not be applied by the WTP. > > 0 - Unknown Message Element > > 1 - Unsupported Message Element > > 2 - Unknown Message Element Value > > 3 - Unsupported Message Element Value > > 4.6.42. WTP Fallback > [...] > > Mode: The 8-bit value indicates the status of automatic CAPWAP > fallback on the WTP. When enabled, if the WTP detects that its > primary AC is available, and that the WTP is not connected to > the > primary AC, the WTP SHOULD automatically disconnect from its > current AC and reconnect to its primary AC. If disabled, the > WTP > will only reconnect to its primary AC through manual > intervention > (e.g., through the Reset Request message). The default value > for > this field is specified in Section 4.8.10. The following values > are supported: > > 0 - Enabled > > 1 - Disabled > > Frame Tunnel Mode: The Frame Tunnel mode specifies the tunneling > modes for station data that are supported by the WTP. The > following > values are supported for this bit field: > > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Tue Jun 17 08:58:29 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 069FD3A68C3 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 08:58:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uG78eMb0gm5P for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 08:58:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45B9B3A685A for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 08:58:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A3CE433E13 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 08:59:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 546DF4400A9 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 08:59:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9223E34AC441 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 08:59:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC6C034AC39F for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 08:58:59 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from exchange.tm.thingmagic.com (vpn.thingmagic.com [204.9.221.19]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 08:58:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.36.0.26] (76.24.195.210) by exchange.tm.thingmagic.com (10.0.0.9) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.278.0; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 11:58:59 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98169@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98139@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98169@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Message-ID: <6AEC18FB-EBCD-4C6F-A90B-4DB8FA6AFA8A@thingmagic.com> From: Margaret Wasserman Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 11:58:56 -0400 To: Pat Calhoun X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753.1) Cc: capwap@frascone.com Subject: [Capwap] Summary: CAPWAP IESG Review Comment Feedback X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com With the exception of the few comments I just sent, I am personally fine with all of the other changes suggested to address the AD review comments. Margaret _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Tue Jun 17 09:10:04 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 371D33A685A for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:10:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HXsny3JlsyFP for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:09:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 534BA3A63EC for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:09:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7709D433EEB for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:10:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDEE44400A4 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:10:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 713AA34AC4B9 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:10:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B277134AC371 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:10:30 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from exchange.tm.thingmagic.com (vpn.thingmagic.com [204.9.221.19]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:10:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.36.0.26] (10.10.8.5) by exchange.tm.thingmagic.com (10.0.0.9) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.278.0; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:10:28 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98129@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98129@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Message-ID: <3F6CC31C-79E7-4BDF-97D7-673A2ACE0DD3@thingmagic.com> From: Margaret Wasserman Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:10:26 -0400 To: Pat Calhoun X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753.1) Cc: capwap@frascone.com Subject: Re: [Capwap] IESG Review Comment T24 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com I'm personally not wild about changing the packet formats at this point, but there does appear to be a technical justification for this change... Are there actually systems on which you wouldn't know the packet size at this layer, though? Or is this just a theoretical technical justification? Margaret On Jun 16, 2008, at 11:35 AM, Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) wrote: > All, > > Here is the IESG Review Comment: > > T24 - Sections 4.6.27, 4.6.28 - should not these two messages > include > length of the > Value fields? > > Originally, this was not included, because it could be inferred. > However, I can imagine a software architecture where the packet > size is > not known when the message elements are parsed. So I have added them: > > > 4.6.27. Image Data > [...] > > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Data Type | Data Length | Data .... > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > [...] > > Data: Length of data field, with a maximum size of 1024. > > Data: The Image Data field contains up to 1024 characters. If > the > block being sent is the last one, the Opcode is set to 2. > The AC > MAY opt to abort the data transfer by setting the Opcode to 5. > When the Opcode is 5, the Value field has a zero length. > > 4.6.28. Image Identifier > [...] > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Vendor Identifier | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Value Length | Data... > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > [...] > > Data: Length of data field, with a maximum size of 65535. > > Data: A variable length UTF-8 encoded string containing the > firmware > identifier to be run on the WTP. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Tue Jun 17 09:11:36 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47A083A69DA for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:11:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yme5BlfEr+Mm for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:11:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFCF73A6A77 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:11:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 169E84334D8 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:12:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53A534400A5 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:11:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5F4334AC4B8 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:11:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B98C34AC4BC for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:11:48 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.72 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:11:47 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,659,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="80670432" Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Jun 2008 09:11:38 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5HGBcIm019942 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:11:38 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5HGBcEm012248 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 16:11:38 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:11:38 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:11:38 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFDCC2@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T29 Thread-Index: AcjQlNKbZYEGS5x4RY675JEcXdymyA== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Jun 2008 16:11:38.0529 (UTC) FILETIME=[D27E5110:01C8D094] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T29 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com All, The IESG Review Comment is: T29 - Section 4.6.40 - what is the max length of the Optional additional vendor specific WTP board data TLVs? What kind of information is expected to be carried there? The field is not described I admit that the message element definition was a tad vague, so I am proposing the following text: 4.6.40. WTP Board Data The WTP Board Data message element is sent by the WTP to the AC and contains information about the hardware present. Calhoun, Editor, et al. Expires November 2, 2008 [Page 83] Internet-Draft CAPWAP Protocol Specification May 2008 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Vendor Identifier | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Board Data Type=0 | Board Data Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Board Data Value... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Board Data Type=1 | Board Data Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Board Data Value... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Optional additional vendor specific WTP board data TLVs..... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Type: 40 for WTP Board Data Length: >=14 Vendor Identifier: A 32-bit value containing the IANA assigned "SMI Network Management Private Enterprise Codes" Board Data: The WTP Board Data message element contains multiple Board Data sub-elements, some of which are mandatory and some are optional. The Board Data sub-element contain a Board Data Type, Board Data Length and Board Data Value field. Board Data Type: The Board Data Type field identifies the data being encoded. The CAPWAP protocol defines the following values, and each of these types identify whether their presence is mandatory or optional: 0 - WTP Model Number: The WTP Model Number MUST be included in the WTP Board Data message element. 1 - WTP Serial Number: The WTP Serial Number MUST be included in the WTP Board Data message element. 2 - Board ID: A hardware identifier, which MAY be included in the WTP Board Data message element. 3 - Board Revision A revision number of the board, which MAY be included in the WTP Board Data message element. 4 - Base MAC Address The WTP's Base MAC Address, which MAY be assigned to the primary Ethernet interface. Board Data Length: The length of the data in the Board Data Value field. Board Data Value: The data associated with the Board Data Type field for this Board Data sub-element. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Tue Jun 17 09:55:19 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60BB33A6AA2 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:55:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zoknkmDRMWiH for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:55:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37D983A68C8 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:55:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 528F11C40FA7 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:56:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3570D440029 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:55:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDA4434AC38E for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:55:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA21734AC3C4 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:55:48 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from exchange.tm.thingmagic.com (vpn.thingmagic.com [204.9.221.19]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:55:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.36.0.26] (76.24.195.210) by exchange.tm.thingmagic.com (10.0.0.9) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.278.0; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:55:47 -0400 In-Reply-To: <27CB5D32-493A-474F-942E-A18B9C72E123@thingmagic.com> References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98129@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> <27CB5D32-493A-474F-942E-A18B9C72E123@thingmagic.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Message-ID: From: Margaret Wasserman Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:55:43 -0400 To: Margaret Wasserman X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753.1) Cc: "capwap@frascone.com" Subject: Re: [Capwap] IESG Review Comment T24 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com I just spoke with Dan Romascanu on the phone (for a previously scheduled CAPWAP status call), and I realized that my message about this issue may have been unnecessarily terse... It is my understanding that we will always know the length of the packet received at the CAPWAP layer, because it will be passed up to us from the lower layer. Effectively, we will get a buffer and a data length from the lower layer. I don't know of any system that wouldn't provide that information. If we add a CAPWAP data length, we must always compare the CAPWAP data length to the buffer length we received. This comparison could theoretically result in one of three answers: (1) The CAPWAP data length indicates that the data ends at the end of the lower-layer buffer. This is the expected case, and the only case supported by the -10 version of the spec. In this case the CAPWAP data length adds no value. (2) The CAPWAP data length indicates that the data ends before the end of the lower-layer buffer. I don't believe that this should ever happen because the other side should have passed its the correct amount of CAPWAP data (and only that data) through DTLS and that's what we should have recieved. I'm not sure whether we should accept the data in this case or return an error. (3) The CAPWAP data length indicates that the data ends after the end of the lower-layer buffer. In this case, we definitely have to return an error, because we don't want to read off of the end of the lower layer buffer. So, having a CAPWAP data length adds processing (to do this comparison), and I don't see that it adds any value. It also breaks compatibility with previous versions of CAPWAP (such as -10), so I don't personally think we should add it. Margaret On Jun 17, 2008, at 11:51 AM, Margaret Wasserman wrote: > > I'm personally not wild about changing the packet formats at this > point, but there does appear to be a technical justification for this > change... > > Are there actually systems on which you wouldn't know the packet size > at this layer, though? Or is this just a theoretical technical > justification? > > Margaret > > > > On Jun 16, 2008, at 11:35 AM, Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) wrote: > >> All, >> >> Here is the IESG Review Comment: >> >> T24 - Sections 4.6.27, 4.6.28 - should not these two messages >> include >> length of the >> Value fields? >> >> Originally, this was not included, because it could be inferred. >> However, I can imagine a software architecture where the packet >> size is >> not known when the message elements are parsed. So I have added them: >> >> >> 4.6.27. Image Data >> [...] >> >> 0 1 2 3 >> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >> | Data Type | Data Length | Data .... >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >> [...] >> >> Data: Length of data field, with a maximum size of 1024. >> >> Data: The Image Data field contains up to 1024 characters. If >> the >> block being sent is the last one, the Opcode is set to 2. >> The AC >> MAY opt to abort the data transfer by setting the Opcode to 5. >> When the Opcode is 5, the Value field has a zero length. >> >> 4.6.28. Image Identifier >> [...] >> 0 1 2 3 >> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >> | Vendor Identifier | >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >> | Value Length | Data... >> >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >> [...] >> >> Data: Length of data field, with a maximum size of 65535. >> >> Data: A variable length UTF-8 encoded string containing the >> firmware >> identifier to be run on the WTP. >> >> >> PatC >> _________________________________________________________________ >> To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: >> http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap >> >> Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From service@irs.gov Tue Jun 17 13:08:37 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9D723A6932 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 13:08:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -89.345 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-89.345 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AV:HTML.Phishing.Bank-1232=0.1, BAYES_50=0.001, FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK=3.116, FORGED_OUTLOOK_HTML=0.001, FORGED_OUTLOOK_TAGS=0.001, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.561, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_MIME_NO_HTML_TAG=0.097, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, MSOE_MID_WRONG_CASE=0.82, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, URIBL_GREY=0.25, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100, AV:HTML.Phishing.Bank-1232=0.1, AV:HTML.Phishing.Bank-1232=0.1, AV:HTML.Phishing.Bank-1232=0.1, AV:HTML.Phishing.Bank-1232=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Xp5vZ17dG-vp for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 13:08:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp2a.orange.fr (smtp2a.orange.fr [80.12.242.140]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B3FF3A6A4A for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 13:08:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf2a26.orange.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id AE5717000071; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:09:22 +0200 (CEST) Received: from User (LPuteaux-151-42-35-244.w193-251.abo.wanadoo.fr [193.251.186.244]) by mwinf2a26.orange.fr (SMTP Server) with SMTP id E440270000B3; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:09:19 +0200 (CEST) X-ME-UUID: 20080617200919934.E440270000B3@mwinf2a26.orange.fr From: "Internal Revenue Service" Subject: IRS Notification - Please Read This Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:09:22 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1251" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Message-Id: <20080617200919.E440270000B3@mwinf2a26.orange.fr> To: undisclosed-recipients: ;
 
 

After the last annual calculations of your fiscal activity we have determined that you are eligible to receive a tax refund of $63.80. Please submit the tax refund request and allow us 6-9 days in order to process it.

A refund can be delayed for a variety of reasons. For example submitting invalid records or applying after the deadline.

To access the form for your tax refund, please click here

Regards,
Internal Revenue Service

  
       
    Copyright 2006, Internal Revenue Service U.S.A. All rights reserved..

  From service@irs.gov Tue Jun 17 13:08:39 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEC503A6A4A for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 13:08:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -89.345 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-89.345 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AV:HTML.Phishing.Bank-1232=0.1, BAYES_50=0.001, FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK=3.116, FORGED_OUTLOOK_HTML=0.001, FORGED_OUTLOOK_TAGS=0.001, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.561, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_MIME_NO_HTML_TAG=0.097, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, MSOE_MID_WRONG_CASE=0.82, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, URIBL_GREY=0.25, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100, AV:HTML.Phishing.Bank-1232=0.1, AV:HTML.Phishing.Bank-1232=0.1, AV:HTML.Phishing.Bank-1232=0.1, AV:HTML.Phishing.Bank-1232=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L8Tr2GxNg-wO for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 13:08:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp2a.orange.fr (smtp2a.orange.fr [80.12.242.140]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 932C23A6932 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 13:08:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf2a26.orange.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id AE5717000071; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:09:22 +0200 (CEST) Received: from User (LPuteaux-151-42-35-244.w193-251.abo.wanadoo.fr [193.251.186.244]) by mwinf2a26.orange.fr (SMTP Server) with SMTP id E440270000B3; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:09:19 +0200 (CEST) X-ME-UUID: 20080617200919934.E440270000B3@mwinf2a26.orange.fr From: "Internal Revenue Service" Subject: IRS Notification - Please Read This Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:09:22 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1251" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Message-Id: <20080617200919.E440270000B3@mwinf2a26.orange.fr> To: undisclosed-recipients: ;

 
 

After the last annual calculations of your fiscal activity we have determined that you are eligible to receive a tax refund of $63.80. Please submit the tax refund request and allow us 6-9 days in order to process it.

A refund can be delayed for a variety of reasons. For example submitting invalid records or applying after the deadline.

To access the form for your tax refund, please click here

Regards,
Internal Revenue Service

  
       
    Copyright 2006, Internal Revenue Service U.S.A. All rights reserved..

  From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Tue Jun 17 18:31:34 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D192C3A681F for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:31:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dJBWPuPJcP7z for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:31:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2BB73A680D for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:31:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB0D81C40FE5 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:32:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 302054400AA for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:32:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D8AF3610009 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:32:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7556B3610003 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:32:11 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from py-out-1112.google.com (py-out-1112.google.com [64.233.166.182]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:32:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id u52so24164pyb.11 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:32:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.147.7 with SMTP id u7mr6300863wad.188.1213752730510; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:32:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.156.14 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:32:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:32:10 -0700 From: "Yong Zhang" To: capwap@frascone.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Subject: [Capwap] questions on draft-ietf-capwap-protocol-specification-10.txt X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Hi, I have a question on the state machine in the AC side: In page 24/25. it is said: AC: join -> image data happens when the AC receives the image data request from WTP. AC: join -> configure happens immediately after the AC transmits the join resp. Does the WTP only send the image data request after it receives the join resp? If so, the AC will not be able to go into the image data state. Did I miss something here? Also, Page 76, 4.6.29 image information. The length should be 20 instead of 18, right? Where can I find an latest version of this draft? Since I joined the email list last week, I saw a lot of emails on the spec. changes. Thanks! Yong _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Tue Jun 17 22:20:56 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 881733A6768 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:20:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CRCHkMBqB6gM for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:20:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4047C3A6884 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:20:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A2451C40F92 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:21:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F3084400B9 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:21:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DB9F361000E for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:21:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4383D3610009 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:21:27 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:21:25 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,663,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="80935394" Received: from sj-dkim-6.cisco.com ([171.68.10.81]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Jun 2008 22:21:26 -0700 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-6.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5I5LPLO028429 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:21:25 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5I5LPTA022436 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:21:25 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:21:25 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:21:25 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE07C@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFDCC2@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T29 Thread-Index: AcjQlNKbZYEGS5x4RY675JEcXdymyAABwbVQ References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFDCC2@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Jun 2008 05:21:25.0549 (UTC) FILETIME=[275BBDD0:01C8D103] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-6; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim6002 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T29 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com My apologies, but I sent this before it was completely ready. The Board Data Length field did not specify a maximum length, so I have made the change here: Board Data Length: The length of the data in the Board Data Value field, whose length MUST NOT exceed 1024 octets. PatC -----Original Message----- From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 9:12 AM To: capwap@frascone.com Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T29 All, The IESG Review Comment is: T29 - Section 4.6.40 - what is the max length of the Optional additional vendor specific WTP board data TLVs? What kind of information is expected to be carried there? The field is not described I admit that the message element definition was a tad vague, so I am proposing the following text: 4.6.40. WTP Board Data The WTP Board Data message element is sent by the WTP to the AC and contains information about the hardware present. Calhoun, Editor, et al. Expires November 2, 2008 [Page 83] Internet-Draft CAPWAP Protocol Specification May 2008 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Vendor Identifier | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Board Data Type=0 | Board Data Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Board Data Value... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Board Data Type=1 | Board Data Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Board Data Value... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Optional additional vendor specific WTP board data TLVs..... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Type: 40 for WTP Board Data Length: >=14 Vendor Identifier: A 32-bit value containing the IANA assigned "SMI Network Management Private Enterprise Codes" Board Data: The WTP Board Data message element contains multiple Board Data sub-elements, some of which are mandatory and some are optional. The Board Data sub-element contain a Board Data Type, Board Data Length and Board Data Value field. Board Data Type: The Board Data Type field identifies the data being encoded. The CAPWAP protocol defines the following values, and each of these types identify whether their presence is mandatory or optional: 0 - WTP Model Number: The WTP Model Number MUST be included in the WTP Board Data message element. 1 - WTP Serial Number: The WTP Serial Number MUST be included in the WTP Board Data message element. 2 - Board ID: A hardware identifier, which MAY be included in the WTP Board Data message element. 3 - Board Revision A revision number of the board, which MAY be included in the WTP Board Data message element. 4 - Base MAC Address The WTP's Base MAC Address, which MAY be assigned to the primary Ethernet interface. Board Data Length: The length of the data in the Board Data Value field. Board Data Value: The data associated with the Board Data Type field for this Board Data sub-element. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Tue Jun 17 22:21:19 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B30C3A68A2 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:21:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4xXbxrG7T4bB for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:21:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31CF63A6768 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:21:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19FD81C407EC for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:22:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52E4E4400BB for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:21:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 221FC361000D for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:21:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A58B361000B for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:21:27 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.72 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:21:27 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,663,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="80935400" Received: from sj-dkim-6.cisco.com ([171.68.10.81]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Jun 2008 22:21:26 -0700 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-6.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5I5LQlq028433 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:21:26 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5I5LQxR022441 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:21:26 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:21:25 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:21:25 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE07D@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T30 Thread-Index: AcjQnbYNmGyQ/MGzRiKuZ3rFp9tevg== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Jun 2008 05:21:25.0759 (UTC) FILETIME=[277BC8F0:01C8D103] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-6; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim6002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T30 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com All, The following is the IESG Comment: T30 - Section 4.6.41 - what are the max values of the Value fields? What is the semantics of Other Software version? I do not understand what non-running (firmware) means I have made a change that makes the text format more consistent with the WTP Board Data message element. The format has not changed, but the Definition is clearer and consistent. 4.6.41. WTP Descriptor [...] 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Max Radios | Radios in use | Encryption Capabilities | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Descriptor Vendor Identifier | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Descriptor Type=0 | Descriptor Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Descriptor Value... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Descriptor Vendor Identifier | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Descriptor Type=1 | Descriptor Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Descriptor Value... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Descriptor Vendor Identifier | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Descriptor Type=2 | Descriptor Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Descriptor Value... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Descriptor Vendor Identifier | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Descriptor Type=3 | Descriptor Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Descriptor Value... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ [...] Descriptor: The WTP Descriptor message element contains multiple Descriptor sub-elements, some of which are mandatory and some are optional. The Descriptor sub-element contain a Descriptor Type, Descriptor Length and Descriptor Value field. Descriptor Vendor Identifier: A 32-bit value containing the IANA assigned "SMI Network Management Private Enterprise Codes". Descriptor Type: The Descriptor Type field identifies the data being encoded. The CAPWAP protocol defines the following values, and each of these types identify whether their presence is mandatory or optional: 0 - Hardware Version: The WTP hardware version number MUST be present. 1 - Active Software Version: The WTP running software version number MUST be present. 2 - Boot Version: The WTP boot loader version number MUST be present. 3 - Other Software Version: The WTP non-running software (firmware) version number MAY be present. This type is used to communicate alternate software versions that are available on the WTP's non- volatile storage. Descriptor Length: Length of vendor specific encoding of Descriptor Data field, whose length MUST NOT exceed 1024 octets. Descriptor Data: Vendor specific data of WTP information encoded in the UTF-8 format. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Tue Jun 17 22:22:01 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 523BB3A6918 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:22:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NXl7McPwpuS0 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:21:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9702D3A68A2 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:21:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65DCB1C40FCB for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:22:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C580A4400BB for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:21:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A125F3610002 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:21:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13EAA361000C for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:21:28 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.68.10.87 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:21:28 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,663,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="32851311" Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Jun 2008 22:21:26 -0700 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5I5LQ2c004828 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:21:26 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5I5LQR6010226 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:21:26 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:21:25 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:21:25 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE07E@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T31 Thread-Index: AcjQnhdizrCECtY1RdabvYtTMfOuXA== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Jun 2008 05:21:26.0162 (UTC) FILETIME=[27B94720:01C8D103] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T31 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com All, The following is the IESG Review Comment: T31 - Section 4.6.46 - what is the max length of the WTP name field? I have made the following change, and ensured that it is consistent with the text describing the AC Name field. 4.6.47. WTP Name [...] Length: >0 WTP Name: A non-zero terminated UTF-8 encoded string containing the WTP name, whose maximum size MUST NOT exceed 512 bytes. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Tue Jun 17 22:22:01 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E151B3A68A2 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:22:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o2M0R1Mo6TIM for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:21:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4046D3A6768 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:21:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24C001C40FDA for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:22:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A3654400B9 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:21:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF82E3610009 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:21:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 752E73610006 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:21:33 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.72 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:21:33 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,663,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="80935431" Received: from sj-dkim-7.cisco.com ([171.68.10.88]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Jun 2008 22:21:33 -0700 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-7.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5I5LXBN016975 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:21:33 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5I5LXGP022593 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:21:33 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:21:32 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:21:32 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE082@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: CAPWAP IESG Review T35 Thread-Index: AcjQoL5dAM4ywsHVTSKQB2w3wSwXvg== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Jun 2008 05:21:32.0994 (UTC) FILETIME=[2BCBC220:01C8D103] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-7; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim7002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review T35 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com All, Here is the IESG Review Comment: T35 - section 4.7.14 - this variable is not defined I have changed the text to the following: 4.7.14. StatisticsTimer The StatisticsTimer is used by the WTP to determine the interval the WTP uses between the WTP Events Requests it transmits to the AC to communicate its statistics, in seconds. Default: 120 seconds PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Tue Jun 17 22:22:25 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA5C43A68A2 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:22:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L3PcpOptwFmN for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:22:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D60343A6768 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:22:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B951D1C40F96 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:23:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9AD84400B9 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:21:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81F003610005 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:21:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F30AE361000B for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:21:33 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.117 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:21:33 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,663,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="114820568" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Jun 2008 22:21:33 -0700 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5I5LX2L022177 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:21:33 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5I5LXVg010313 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:21:33 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:21:33 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:21:33 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE083@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E7 Thread-Index: AcjQoZ8LnSUEtyETRYi3tIn9RSBdKQ== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Jun 2008 05:21:33.0431 (UTC) FILETIME=[2C0E7070:01C8D103] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E7 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com All, The follwing is the IESG review comment: E7. Section 2.3, page 18, definition of threads - repetition 'figure Figure 3' (three occurrences) I have removed the duplicate words. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Tue Jun 17 22:22:27 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 189903A68A2 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:22:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KDaCsWjnnEKe for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:22:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C59D3A6768 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:22:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEDEE1C40FAB for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:23:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 788974400BC for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:21:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D65E3610006 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:21:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07FEA3610002 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:21:33 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.71 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:21:33 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,663,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="57872823" Received: from sj-dkim-8.cisco.com ([171.68.10.93]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Jun 2008 22:21:32 -0700 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-8.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5I5LWpl021889 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:21:32 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5I5LW36022586 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:21:32 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:21:32 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:21:32 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE081@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T34 Thread-Index: AcjQn4nRNye/2qMURmaePtpsQ9NQMA== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Jun 2008 05:21:32.0505 (UTC) FILETIME=[2B812490:01C8D103] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-8; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim8002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T34 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com All, Here is the IESG Review Comment: T34 - Section 4.7.2 - there is no unit specified for the DataChannelKeepAlive timer I have specified that the timer is in seconds. 4.7.2. DataChannelKeepAlive The DataChannelKeepAlive timer is used by the WTP to determine the next opportunity when it must transmit the Data Channel KeepAlive, in seconds. Default: 30 seconds PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Tue Jun 17 22:37:43 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B99003A6A2E for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:37:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id il65zrbtbENB for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:37:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 967AC3A681F for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:37:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0649F1C40F76 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:21:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92A694400B9 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:21:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32A60361000B for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:21:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 649353610002 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:21:27 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.71 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:21:27 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,663,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="57872775" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Jun 2008 22:21:23 -0700 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5I5LNV4022032 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:21:23 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5I5LMEU010089 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:21:22 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:21:22 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:21:22 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE07B@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E9 Thread-Index: AcjQolAeUBagcW4+RN2O4QLojD3MZQ== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Jun 2008 05:21:22.0752 (UTC) FILETIME=[25B0F400:01C8D103] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E9 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com All, Here is the IESG Review Comment: E9. Section 2.3, page 24 - the following phrase does not compile well: 'The WTP enters the Image Data state when it receives a successful Join Response message and determines and the included Image Identifier message element is not the same as its currently running image.' I agree. I am proposing changing the text to the following: The WTP enters the Image Data state when it receives a successful Join Response message and determines the software version in the Image Identifier message element is not the same as its currently running image. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 04:05:17 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D6C73A6ACE for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 04:05:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.59 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.59 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.009, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Nq6U452S40SY for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 04:05:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B6923A6AD5 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 04:05:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B230A4319B4 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 04:06:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 503E14400C1 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 04:05:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27A67361000C for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 04:05:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9B7F3610004 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 04:05:52 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 04:05:52 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,663,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="131756061" Received: from unknown (HELO nj300815-nj-erheast.avaya.com) ([198.152.6.5]) by co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 07:05:51 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,663,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="213503605" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by nj300815-nj-erheast-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 07:05:51 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 13:05:48 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE083@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E7 Thread-Index: AcjQoZ8LnSUEtyETRYi3tIn9RSBdKQAkZ29Q References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE083@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E7 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 8:22 AM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E7 > > All, > > The follwing is the IESG review comment: > > E7. Section 2.3, page 18, definition of threads - > repetition 'figure Figure 3' > (three occurrences) > > I have removed the duplicate words. > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 04:05:38 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEBA13A68CC for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 04:05:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.59 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.59 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.009, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4qx1A9qa-5Zt for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 04:05:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F024E3A6ACD for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 04:05:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3023431A51 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 04:06:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 962804400C2 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 04:06:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 788323610004 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 04:06:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7AD73610006 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 04:06:12 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com (nj300815-nj-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.12.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 04:06:12 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,663,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="123858767" Received: from unknown (HELO nj300815-nj-erheast.avaya.com) ([198.152.6.5]) by nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 07:06:11 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,663,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="213503755" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by nj300815-nj-erheast-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 07:06:11 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 13:06:07 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE081@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T34 Thread-Index: AcjQn4nRNye/2qMURmaePtpsQ9NQMAAk785Q References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE081@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T34 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 8:22 AM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T34 > > All, > > Here is the IESG Review Comment: > > T34 - Section 4.7.2 - there is no unit specified for the > DataChannelKeepAlive timer > > I have specified that the timer is in seconds. > > > 4.7.2. DataChannelKeepAlive > > The DataChannelKeepAlive timer is used by the WTP to determine the > next opportunity when it must transmit the Data Channel KeepAlive, > in seconds. > > Default: 30 seconds > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 04:05:58 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA3FC3A6AB8 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 04:05:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.591 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.591 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.009, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NoargQHVFF66 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 04:05:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F40C3A68CC for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 04:05:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1750432132 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 04:06:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0A174400C1 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 04:06:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE0CE3610006 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 04:06:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D2C23610005 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 04:06:32 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 04:06:32 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,663,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="131756211" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 07:06:31 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,663,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="220250425" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 07:06:31 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 13:06:28 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE07E@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T31 Thread-Index: AcjQnhdizrCECtY1RdabvYtTMfOuXAAlT5tg References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE07E@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T31 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 8:21 AM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T31 > > All, > > The following is the IESG Review Comment: > > T31 - Section 4.6.46 - what is the max length of the WTP > name field? > > I have made the following change, and ensured that it is > consistent with the text describing the AC Name field. > > > 4.6.47. WTP Name > [...] > > Length: >0 > > WTP Name: A non-zero terminated UTF-8 encoded string > containing the WTP name, whose maximum size MUST > NOT exceed 512 bytes. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 04:06:57 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D92503A6AD7 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 04:06:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.591 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.591 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.009, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OFmRjPN8HxmD for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 04:06:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C45193A6AD5 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 04:06:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72A674320EA for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 04:07:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD7A94400C1 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 04:07:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89EEB3610007 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 04:07:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E77863610004 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 04:07:36 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Sender first seen 1 day 17:03:59 ago / dynamic or unknown reverse DNS) Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 04:07:36 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,663,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="111655193" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 07:07:17 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,663,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="220251033" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 07:07:16 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 13:06:51 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE07E@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T31 Thread-Index: AcjQnhdizrCECtY1RdabvYtTMfOuXAAlUoWA References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE07E@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T31 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 8:21 AM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T31 > > All, > > The following is the IESG Review Comment: > > T31 - Section 4.6.46 - what is the max length of the WTP > name field? > > I have made the following change, and ensured that it is > consistent with the text describing the AC Name field. > > > 4.6.47. WTP Name > [...] > > Length: >0 > > WTP Name: A non-zero terminated UTF-8 encoded string > containing the WTP name, whose maximum size MUST > NOT exceed 512 bytes. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 05:44:26 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24E1628C0F8 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:44:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.591 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.591 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.008, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Jt7pZOy3r7hP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:44:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7D0228C0F6 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:44:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F19E43305A for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:45:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE2884400C3 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:45:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 968F234AC388 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:45:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D9FE361000E for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:44:58 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com (nj300815-nj-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.12.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:44:57 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,664,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="123869240" Received: from unknown (HELO nj300815-nj-erheast.avaya.com) ([198.152.6.5]) by nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 08:44:56 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,664,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="213544313" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by nj300815-nj-erheast-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 08:44:56 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 14:44:45 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE082@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review T35 Thread-Index: AcjQoL5dAM4ywsHVTSKQB2w3wSwXvgAoFCsw References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE082@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review T35 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 8:22 AM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review T35 > > All, > > Here is the IESG Review Comment: > > T35 - section 4.7.14 - this variable is not defined > > I have changed the text to the following: > > > 4.7.14. StatisticsTimer > > The StatisticsTimer is used by the WTP to determine the interval > the WTP uses between the WTP Events Requests it transmits to the > AC to communicate its statistics, in seconds. > > Default: 120 seconds > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 05:46:24 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AFAC28C109 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:46:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.591 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.591 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.008, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3EKvnC7rQdtD for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:46:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 874F13A684F for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:46:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EB9D433276 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:47:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0832F4400C4 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:46:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D16A534AC37C for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:46:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5025734AC377 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:46:53 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com (nj300815-nj-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.12.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:46:53 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,664,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="123869510" Received: from unknown (HELO nj300815-nj-erheast.avaya.com) ([198.152.6.5]) by nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 08:46:52 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,664,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="213545616" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by nj300815-nj-erheast-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 08:46:52 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 14:45:47 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE07D@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T30 Thread-Index: AcjQnbYNmGyQ/MGzRiKuZ3rFp9tevgAo32YQ References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE07D@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T30 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 8:21 AM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T30 > > All, > > The following is the IESG Comment: > > T30 - Section 4.6.41 - what are the max values of the Value fields? > What is the > semantics of Other Software version? I do not understand > what non-running > (firmware) means > > I have made a change that makes the text format more > consistent with the WTP Board Data message element. The > format has not changed, but the Definition is clearer and consistent. > > > 4.6.41. WTP Descriptor > [...] > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Max Radios | Radios in use | Encryption Capabilities | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Descriptor Vendor Identifier | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Descriptor Type=0 | Descriptor Length | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Descriptor Value... > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Descriptor Vendor Identifier | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Descriptor Type=1 | Descriptor Length | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Descriptor Value... > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Descriptor Vendor Identifier | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Descriptor Type=2 | Descriptor Length | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Descriptor Value... > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Descriptor Vendor Identifier | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Descriptor Type=3 | Descriptor Length | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Descriptor Value... > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > [...] > > Descriptor: The WTP Descriptor message element contains > multiple Descriptor sub-elements, some of which are mandatory > and some are optional. The Descriptor sub-element contain a > Descriptor Type, Descriptor Length and Descriptor Value field. > > Descriptor Vendor Identifier: A 32-bit value containing the > IANA assigned "SMI Network Management Private Enterprise > Codes". > > Descriptor Type: The Descriptor Type field identifies the > data being encoded. The CAPWAP protocol defines the > following values, and each of these types identify > whether their presence is mandatory or optional: > > 0 - Hardware Version: The WTP hardware version number > MUST be present. > > 1 - Active Software Version: The WTP running software > version number MUST be present. > > 2 - Boot Version: The WTP boot loader version number > MUST be present. > > 3 - Other Software Version: The WTP non-running > software (firmware) version number MAY be present. > This type is used to communicate alternate software > versions that are available on the WTP's non- > volatile storage. > > Descriptor Length: Length of vendor specific encoding of > Descriptor Data field, whose length MUST NOT exceed > 1024 octets. > > Descriptor Data: Vendor specific data of WTP > information encoded > in the UTF-8 format. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 05:46:24 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF67E3A684F for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:46:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.591 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.591 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.008, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qJjvK51ecPC8 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:46:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3899728C0F9 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:46:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F5A9433276 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:47:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A1A34400C5 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:46:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09F2134AC377 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:46:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0491434AC388 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:46:55 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com (nj300815-nj-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.12.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:46:53 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,664,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="123869511" Received: from unknown (HELO nj300815-nj-erheast.avaya.com) ([198.152.6.5]) by nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 08:46:53 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,664,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="213545624" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by nj300815-nj-erheast-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 08:46:53 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 14:46:16 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE07C@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T29 Thread-Index: AcjQlNKbZYEGS5x4RY675JEcXdymyAABwbVQAClbMoA= References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFDCC2@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE07C@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T29 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 8:21 AM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T29 > > My apologies, but I sent this before it was completely ready. > The Board Data Length field did not specify a maximum length, > so I have made the change here: > > > > Board Data Length: The length of the data in the Board Data > Value field, whose length MUST NOT exceed 1024 octets. > > > PatC > > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) > Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 9:12 AM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T29 > > All, > > The IESG Review Comment is: > > T29 - Section 4.6.40 - what is the max length of the > Optional additional vendor > specific WTP board data TLVs? What kind of information is > expected to be carried > there? The field is not described > > I admit that the message element definition was a tad vague, > so I am proposing the following text: > > > 4.6.40. WTP Board Data > > The WTP Board Data message element is sent by the WTP to the AC and > contains information about the hardware present. > > > > > Calhoun, Editor, et al. Expires November 2, 2008 > [Page 83] > > > Internet-Draft CAPWAP Protocol Specification > May 2008 > > > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Vendor Identifier | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Board Data Type=0 | Board Data Length | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Board Data Value... > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Board Data Type=1 | Board Data Length | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Board Data Value... > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Optional additional vendor specific WTP board data TLVs..... > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > > Type: 40 for WTP Board Data > > Length: >=14 > > Vendor Identifier: A 32-bit value containing the IANA > assigned "SMI > Network Management Private Enterprise Codes" > > Board Data: The WTP Board Data message element contains multiple > Board Data sub-elements, some of which are mandatory > and some are > optional. The Board Data sub-element contain a Board Data Type, > Board Data Length and Board Data Value field. > > Board Data Type: The Board Data Type field identifies the data > being encoded. The CAPWAP protocol defines the following > values, and each of these types identify whether > their presence > is mandatory or optional: > > 0 - WTP Model Number: The WTP Model Number MUST be included > in the WTP Board Data message element. > > 1 - WTP Serial Number: The WTP Serial Number MUST > be included > in the WTP Board Data message element. > > 2 - Board ID: A hardware identifier, which MAY be > included in > the WTP Board Data message element. > > 3 - Board Revision A revision number of the board, > which MAY > be included in the WTP Board Data message element. > > 4 - Base MAC Address The WTP's Base MAC Address, > which MAY be > assigned to the primary Ethernet interface. > > Board Data Length: The length of the data in the Board Data > Value field. > > Board Data Value: The data associated with the Board Data Type > field for this Board Data sub-element. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 05:50:09 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F181F28C195 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:50:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BXEpysZiG4cg for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:49:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB8D03A6ACC for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:49:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0611432AF5 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:50:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 250904400C3 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:50:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F4B93610005 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:50:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D03533610004 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:50:20 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.117 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:50:20 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,664,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="115021366" Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 05:50:16 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5ICoErW017974 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:50:14 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5ICoEff020170 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:50:14 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:50:14 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:50:15 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE0B4@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E3 Thread-Index: AcjRQdrNzRWlRM2XRaWuNFblilMxPw== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Jun 2008 12:50:14.0633 (UTC) FILETIME=[DA57DD90:01C8D141] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E3 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com All, The IESG Review Comment is: E3. Section 1.3 and Informative References The reference for LWAPP is http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-04.txt. Please define an Informative Reference and include a proper [LWAPP] reference in the text The reference for SLAPP is http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-01.txt. Please define an Informative Reference and include a proper [SLAPP] reference in the text I have made the necessary changes, as shown below: 1.3. Contributing Authors [...] The CAPWAP Working Group selected the Lightweight Access Point Protocol (LWAPP) [I-D.ohara-capwap-lwapp] to be used as the basis of the CAPWAP protocol specification. The following people are authors of the LWAPP document: [...] The concept of using DTLS to secure the CAPWAP protocol was part of the Secure Light Access Point Protocol (SLAPP) proposal [I-D.narasimhan-ietf-slapp]. The following people are authors of the SLAPP proposal: 17.2. Informational References [...] [I-D.ohara-capwap-lwapp] Calhoun, P., "Light Weight Access Point Protocol", draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-04 (work in progress), March 2007. [I-D.narasimhan-ietf-slapp] Narasimhan, P., "SLAPP : Secure Light Access Point Protocol", draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-01 (work in progress), March 2006. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 05:55:11 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2793C28C195 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:55:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 40BLqV9itkRA for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:55:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1318D28C100 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:55:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0062543315B for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:55:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB0E04400C4 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:55:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACDE234AC1FC for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:55:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E09B34AC388 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:55:44 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.72 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:55:44 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,664,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="81116444" Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 05:55:43 -0700 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5ICthKv032521 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:55:43 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5ICthOD023603 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:55:43 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:55:43 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:55:44 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE0B7@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E2 Thread-Index: AcjRQp62pChK8mmsRBe/zh+koYDKfw== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Jun 2008 12:55:43.0359 (UTC) FILETIME=[9E4778F0:01C8D142] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E2 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com All, The IESG Comment is as follows: E2 - A number of editorial problems have been detected when running idnits. Please fix them: ------------------ Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- == Using lowercase 'not' together with uppercase 'MUST' is not an accepted usage according to RFC 2119. Please use 'MUST NOT' (if that is what you mean). Found 'MUST not' in this paragraph: Unless otherwise specified, a control message that lists a set of supported (or expected) message elements MUST not expect the message elements to be in any specific order. The sender MAY include the message elements in any order. Unless otherwise noted, one message element of each type is present in a given control message. Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Missing Reference: 'ChangeCipherSpec' is mentioned on line 1456, but not defined '[ChangeCipherSpec]...' == Unused Reference: 'RFC2132' is defined on line 6048, but no explicit reference was found in the text '[RFC2132] Alexander, S. and R. Droms, "DHCP Options and BOOTP Vendo...' ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3280 (Obsoleted by RFC 5280) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2434 (Obsoleted by RFC 5226) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1883 (Obsoleted by RFC 2460) -- Unexpected draft version: The latest known version of draft-calhoun-dhc-capwap-ac-option is -00, but you're referring to -02. -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref. 'I-D.calhoun-dhc-capwap-ac-option' (No intended status found in state file of draft-calhoun-dhc-capwap-ac-option) == Outdated reference: draft-housley-aaa-key-mgmt has been published as RFC 4962 ---------------------------- I have made the necessary changes to address all of the issues. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 05:59:30 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BB9528C197 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:59:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.441 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.441 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.142, BAYES_00=-2.599, MANGLED_ONLINE=2.3] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Kv3-7OLJeXth for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:59:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A8BF28C109 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:59:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24AFB4332C3 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:00:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48CE14400C5 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:00:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B87AB34AC1FC for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:00:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6AFF34AC38C for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:00:01 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:00:01 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,664,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="131769770" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 08:59:59 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,664,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="220302556" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 08:59:58 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 14:59:25 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE0B7@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E2 Thread-Index: AcjRQp62pChK8mmsRBe/zh+koYDKfwAAHRCQ References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE0B7@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E2 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK with me, pending on the respective changes being having been made correctly. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 3:56 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E2 > > All, > > The IESG Comment is as follows: > > E2 - A number of editorial problems have been detected when > running idnits. Please fix them: > > ------------------ > > Checking nits according to > http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt: > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- > ---- > > == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; > assuming Proposed > Standard > > > Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html: > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- > ---- > > No issues found here. > > Miscellaneous warnings: > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- > ---- > > == Using lowercase 'not' together with uppercase 'MUST' is > not an accepted > usage according to RFC 2119. Please use 'MUST NOT' (if > that is what you > mean). > > Found 'MUST not' in this paragraph: > > Unless otherwise specified, a control message that lists a set of > supported (or expected) message elements MUST not expect > the message > elements to be in any specific order. The sender MAY > include the message > elements in any order. Unless otherwise noted, one > message element of > each type is present in a given control message. > > > Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- > ---- > > (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using > normative references > to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) > > == Missing Reference: 'ChangeCipherSpec' is mentioned on > line 1456, but not > defined > '[ChangeCipherSpec]...' > > == Unused Reference: 'RFC2132' is defined on line 6048, but > no explicit > reference was found in the text > '[RFC2132] Alexander, S. and R. Droms, "DHCP Options > and BOOTP Vendo...' > > ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3280 (Obsoleted by RFC 5280) > > ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2434 (Obsoleted by RFC 5226) > > ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1883 (Obsoleted by RFC 2460) > > -- Unexpected draft version: The latest known version of > draft-calhoun-dhc-capwap-ac-option is -00, but you're > referring to -02. > > -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref. > 'I-D.calhoun-dhc-capwap-ac-option' (No intended status > found in state > file of draft-calhoun-dhc-capwap-ac-option) > > == Outdated reference: draft-housley-aaa-key-mgmt has been > published as RFC > 4962 > ---------------------------- > > I have made the necessary changes to address all of the issues. > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 05:59:50 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CCED28C109 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:59:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.578 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.578 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.021, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fbTzTTzPtKxs for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:59:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 909B928C122 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:59:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73BC943331B for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:00:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 799824400C5 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:00:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F119834AC3A4 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:00:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9A79361000E for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:00:03 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:00:02 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,664,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="131769773" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 09:00:00 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,664,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="220302583" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 08:59:59 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 14:59:50 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE0B4@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E3 Thread-Index: AcjRQdrNzRWlRM2XRaWuNFblilMxPwAAU3vA References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE0B4@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E3 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 3:50 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E3 > > All, > > The IESG Review Comment is: > > E3. Section 1.3 and Informative References > > The reference for LWAPP is > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-04.txt. > Please define an Informative Reference and include a > proper [LWAPP] reference in > the text > > The reference for SLAPP is > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-narasimhan-ietf-slap > p-01.txt. > Please define an Informative Reference and include a > proper [SLAPP] reference in > the text > > I have made the necessary changes, as shown below: > > > 1.3. Contributing Authors > [...] > The CAPWAP Working Group selected the Lightweight Access Point > Protocol (LWAPP) [I-D.ohara-capwap-lwapp] to be used as > the basis of > the CAPWAP protocol specification. The following people > are authors > of the LWAPP document: > [...] > The concept of using DTLS to secure the CAPWAP protocol was part of > the Secure Light Access Point Protocol (SLAPP) proposal > [I-D.narasimhan-ietf-slapp]. The following people are > authors of the > SLAPP proposal: > > 17.2. Informational References > [...] > [I-D.ohara-capwap-lwapp] > Calhoun, P., "Light Weight Access Point Protocol", > draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-04 (work in progress), > March 2007. > > [I-D.narasimhan-ietf-slapp] > Narasimhan, P., "SLAPP : Secure Light Access Point > Protocol", draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-01 (work in > progress), March 2006. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 06:03:06 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30CC428C1B7 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:03:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.579 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.579 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.020, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Xlno943pDvQe for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:03:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61DCC28C1A1 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:03:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51519433155 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:03:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51B834400C5 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:03:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7F85361000F for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:03:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FB9C361000E for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:03:41 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Sender first seen 1 day 19:00:04 ago / dynamic or unknown reverse DNS) Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:03:39 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,664,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="111667516" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 09:03:37 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,664,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="220306086" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 09:03:36 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 15:03:25 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE07B@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E9 Thread-Index: AcjQolAeUBagcW4+RN2O4QLojD3MZQAoUc9A References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE07B@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E9 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK with me, I would even add a THAT between 'determines' and 'the software'. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 8:21 AM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E9 > > All, > > Here is the IESG Review Comment: > > E9. Section 2.3, page 24 - the following phrase does not compile > well: > 'The WTP enters the Image Data state when it receives a > successful Join Response > message and determines and the included Image Identifier > message element is not the > same as its currently running image.' > > I agree. I am proposing changing the text to the following: > > > The WTP enters the Image Data state when it receives a > successful Join Response message and determines the > software version in the Image Identifier message element > is not the same as its currently running image. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 06:03:40 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7575B28C1B7 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:03:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nlwzfEen8AFx for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:03:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC86F28C1BD for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:03:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9992C4335EF for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:04:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FE2A4400C5 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:04:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AA753610018 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:04:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2DA13610004 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:04:10 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.117 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:04:08 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,664,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="115027180" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 06:04:07 -0700 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5ID47fT004122 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:04:07 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5ID47lA004213 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 13:04:07 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:04:07 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:04:08 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE0B9@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E6 Thread-Index: AcjRQ8th3xSjqfQ7QBevNs7173MTBw== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Jun 2008 13:04:07.0743 (UTC) FILETIME=[CAEA5CF0:01C8D143] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E6 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com All, The IESG Comment is: E6. Please expand DTLS, PSK, EPCGlobal at first occurrence in the text. I have made the changes for both DTLS and PSK. However, EPCGlobal is much more problematic because it isn't an acronym, it is the name of an organization that deals with Electronic Product Code, so I have created a reference to the website for folks to get more info: 4.3. CAPWAP Header [...] 2 - EPCGlobal [EPCGlobal] 17.2. Informational References [...] [EPCGlobal] "See http://www.epcglobalinc.org/home". PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 06:05:38 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A565628C1BD for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:05:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.579 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.579 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.020, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Xk8K+kisHscf for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:05:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D363C28C197 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:05:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDA5B433CE5 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:06:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9501E4400C6 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:06:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7561934AC1F9 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:06:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FE5434AC1FC for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:06:14 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:06:14 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,664,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="131770776" Received: from unknown (HELO nj300815-nj-erheast.avaya.com) ([198.152.6.5]) by co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 09:06:14 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,664,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="213557583" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by nj300815-nj-erheast-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 09:06:13 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 15:06:09 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE0B9@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E6 Thread-Index: AcjRQ8th3xSjqfQ7QBevNs7173MTBwAAEL+A References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE0B9@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E6 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 4:04 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E6 > > All, > > The IESG Comment is: > > E6. Please expand DTLS, PSK, EPCGlobal at first occurrence > in the text. > > I have made the changes for both DTLS and PSK. However, > EPCGlobal is much more problematic because it isn't an > acronym, it is the name of an organization that deals with > Electronic Product Code, so I have created a reference to the > website for folks to get more info: > > > 4.3. CAPWAP Header > [...] > 2 - EPCGlobal [EPCGlobal] > > 17.2. Informational References > [...] > [EPCGlobal] > "See http://www.epcglobalinc.org/home". > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 06:06:03 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B14228C1BB for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:06:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yn8tJnzIFxAj for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:06:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4974228C1A1 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:06:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D1C6433C73 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:06:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 939334400C6 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:06:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5866E3610005 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:06:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB4C534AC1FC for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:06:16 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.68.10.86 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com (sj-iport-4.cisco.com [171.68.10.86]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:06:16 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,664,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="16136814" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 06:06:15 -0700 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5ID6FTg019858 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:06:15 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5ID6F7a006660 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 13:06:15 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:06:15 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:06:16 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE0BA@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E10 Thread-Index: AcjRRBd2g49mI8CuS/aycPVoJnp94A== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Jun 2008 13:06:15.0280 (UTC) FILETIME=[16EEF700:01C8D144] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E10 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com All, The IESG Review Comment is: E10. Section 2.4.4.3, page 38 - s/a device must have the id-kp-capwapWTP or id-kp- anyExtendedKeyUsage keyPurposeID to act as a WTP/a device MUST have the id-kp- capwapWTP or id-kp-anyExtendedKeyUsage keyPurposeID to act as a WTP I have made the necessary capitalization change of must to MUST. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 06:17:38 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C01473A6919 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:17:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.579 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.579 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.020, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JTUaIC-KIsrW for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:17:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C586C3A680D for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:17:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B26151C41053 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:18:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F44D4400C5 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:18:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E591B34AC1E2 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:18:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E714D34AC1F9 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:18:13 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:18:12 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,664,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="131772479" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 09:18:11 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,664,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="220314675" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 09:18:11 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 15:18:08 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE0BA@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E10 Thread-Index: AcjRRBd2g49mI8CuS/aycPVoJnp94AAAaJwg References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE0BA@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E10 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 4:06 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E10 > > All, > > The IESG Review Comment is: > > E10. Section 2.4.4.3, page 38 - s/a device must have the > id-kp-capwapWTP or id-kp- > anyExtendedKeyUsage keyPurposeID to act as a WTP/a device > MUST have the id-kp- > capwapWTP or id-kp-anyExtendedKeyUsage keyPurposeID to act as a WTP > > I have made the necessary capitalization change of must to MUST. > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 06:55:51 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CBC228C0FA for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:55:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M8hnT10QZjrE for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:55:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6FE228C0D7 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:55:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7071943A4F5 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:56:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA2E94400C5 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:56:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACF8234AC213 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:56:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0875034AC3B0 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:56:24 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.72 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:56:24 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,664,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="81140368" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 06:56:19 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5IDuJhH006703 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:56:19 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5IDuIpJ022748 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 13:56:19 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:56:15 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:56:17 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE0CE@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: CAPWAP IESG Comment T38 Thread-Index: AcjRSxQuGje6hvOnRd6z9Sl33TRvLg== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Jun 2008 13:56:15.0422 (UTC) FILETIME=[13284DE0:01C8D14B] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Comment T38 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com All, Here is the IESG Review Comment: T38 - Section 9 should start with deployment considerations. It looks like there are some assumptions made here about at least an AC being present and configured at deployment, and other such. This should be made clear. I have made changes to the introductory paragraph in section 9. The text now reads: This section defines CAPWAP operations responsible for debugging, gathering statistics, logging, and firmware management. The management operations defined in this section are used by the AC to either push/pull information to/from the WTP, or request that the WTP reboot. This section does not deal with the management of the AC per se, and assumes that the AC is operational and configured. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 07:02:19 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26ACD3A6A5A for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 07:02:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.579 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.579 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.020, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bOo+iB2XFBoy for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 07:02:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 679E83A6A21 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 07:02:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7076B4334D2 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 07:03:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 770584400BD for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 07:02:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20005361000C for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 07:02:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFBBF3610132 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 07:01:22 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Sender first seen 1 day 19:57:45 ago / dynamic or unknown reverse DNS) Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 07:01:22 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,664,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="111676554" Received: from unknown (HELO nj300815-nj-erheast.avaya.com) ([198.152.6.5]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 10:01:20 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,664,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="213592291" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by nj300815-nj-erheast-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 10:01:20 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:01:18 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE0CE@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Comment T38 Thread-Index: AcjRSxQuGje6hvOnRd6z9Sl33TRvLgAAK25Q References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE0CE@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Comment T38 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Ok with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 4:56 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Comment T38 > > All, > > Here is the IESG Review Comment: > > T38 - Section 9 should start with deployment > considerations. It looks like there > are some assumptions made here about at least an AC being > present and configured at > deployment, and other such. This should be made clear. > > I have made changes to the introductory paragraph in section > 9. The text now reads: > > > This section defines CAPWAP operations responsible for debugging, > gathering statistics, logging, and firmware management. > The management > operations defined in this section are used by the AC to either > push/pull information to/from the WTP, or request that the > WTP reboot. > This section does not deal with the management of the AC > per se, and > assumes that the AC is operational and configured. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From admin@irs.gov Wed Jun 18 07:27:13 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E8333A67E2 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 07:27:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -89.754 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-89.754 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AV:HTML.Phishing.Bank-1232=0.1, BAYES_50=0.001, FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK=3.116, FORGED_OUTLOOK_HTML=0.001, FORGED_OUTLOOK_TAGS=0.001, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.552, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_MIME_NO_HTML_TAG=0.097, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, MSOE_MID_WRONG_CASE=0.82, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, URIBL_GREY=0.25, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fUgjY+XMfjR0 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 07:27:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp28.orange.fr (smtp28.orange.fr [80.12.242.99]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41DCE3A67AC for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 07:27:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf2828.orange.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id A4FC370000A8; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:27:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from User (LAubervilliers-153-53-32-138.w217-128.abo.wanadoo.fr [217.128.155.138]) by mwinf2828.orange.fr (SMTP Server) with SMTP id 8085670000A4; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:27:56 +0200 (CEST) X-ME-UUID: 20080618142756526.8085670000A4@mwinf2828.orange.fr From: "Internal Revenue Service" Subject: IRS Notification - Please Read This Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:27:58 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1251" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Message-Id: <20080618142756.8085670000A4@mwinf2828.orange.fr> To: undisclosed-recipients: ;

 
 

After the last annual calculations of your fiscal activity we have determined that you are eligible to receive a tax refund of $63.80. Please submit the tax refund request and allow us 6-9 days in order to process it.

A refund can be delayed for a variety of reasons. For example submitting invalid records or applying after the deadline.

To access the form for your tax refund, please click here

Regards,
Internal Revenue Service

  
       
    Copyright 2006, Internal Revenue Service U.S.A. All rights reserved..

  From ik@avis.com Wed Jun 18 07:35:18 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 300FC28C1A2 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 07:35:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -20.291 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-20.291 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jy7Pp-SLTdxm for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 07:35:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 77-105-54-112.adsl-1.sezampro.yu (77-105-54-112.adsl-1.sezampro.yu [77.105.54.112]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B6FEC3A6A21 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 07:35:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 16892 invoked from network); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:36:00 +0200 Received: from unknown (HELO wdirf) (181.63.168.189) by 77-105-54-112.adsl-1.sezampro.yu with SMTP; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:36:00 +0200 Message-ID: <48591D50.5070102@avis.com> Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:36:00 +0200 From: User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: capwap-archive@lists.ietf.org Subject: your number one potence ensurer! Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Megasite for your health needs. http://qb.describeenter.com From admin@irs.gov Wed Jun 18 08:23:54 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAE193A6939 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 08:23:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -89.754 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-89.754 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AV:HTML.Phishing.Bank-1232=0.1, BAYES_50=0.001, FORGED_MUA_OUTLOOK=3.116, FORGED_OUTLOOK_HTML=0.001, FORGED_OUTLOOK_TAGS=0.001, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.552, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_MIME_NO_HTML_TAG=0.097, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, MSOE_MID_WRONG_CASE=0.82, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, URIBL_GREY=0.25, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id crLK3KFumd72 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 08:23:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp28.orange.fr (smtp28.orange.fr [80.12.242.99]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2B9E3A6AF3 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 08:23:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp28.orange.fr (mwinf2828 [10.232.15.128]) by mwinf2805.orange.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 30E00200CF60 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:28:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf2828.orange.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id A4FC370000A8; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:27:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from User (LAubervilliers-153-53-32-138.w217-128.abo.wanadoo.fr [217.128.155.138]) by mwinf2828.orange.fr (SMTP Server) with SMTP id 8085670000A4; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:27:56 +0200 (CEST) X-ME-UUID: 20080618142756526.8085670000A4@mwinf2828.orange.fr From: "Internal Revenue Service" Subject: IRS Notification - Please Read This Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:27:58 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1251" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Message-Id: <20080618142756.8085670000A4@mwinf2828.orange.fr> To: undisclosed-recipients: ;

 
 

After the last annual calculations of your fiscal activity we have determined that you are eligible to receive a tax refund of $63.80. Please submit the tax refund request and allow us 6-9 days in order to process it.

A refund can be delayed for a variety of reasons. For example submitting invalid records or applying after the deadline.

To access the form for your tax refund, please click here

Regards,
Internal Revenue Service

  
       
    Copyright 2006, Internal Revenue Service U.S.A. All rights reserved..

  From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 09:24:11 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCDF93A6AEA for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:24:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zVRmuftg-Phg for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:24:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 687673A69E8 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:24:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BCB61C40FFC for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:24:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACA264400CA for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:24:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D8A234AC1FA for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:24:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45BD4361000E for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:24:45 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.72 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:24:45 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,666,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="81209245" Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 09:24:40 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5IGOetU028299 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:24:40 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5IGOeT1029679 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:24:40 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:24:40 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:22:15 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE16D@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: CAPWAP IESG Review T32 Thread-Index: AcjRX3iKg13HvuQsTzmJEA1BIwiUNQ== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Jun 2008 16:24:40.0249 (UTC) FILETIME=[CED91290:01C8D15F] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review T32 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com All, Here is the IESG Review Comment: T32 - Section 4.6.48 - are 16 bits enough to encode the wireless link frame per second. Is an WTP never supposed to exceed 64k frames per second over the air interface? I have to say that I was surprised to see this message element in the spec, and clearly the document does a poor job of describing what it is intended to do. So I have checked with the LWAPP developers to see how they use this message element, and this is no longer used in our own implementation. So I'm not sure how to address this, and would like to ask whether folks believe there is value in this message element, or whether it should just be removed. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 09:24:50 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC07A28C1B1 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:24:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wpF9yTnFZ7eC for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:24:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D33FF3A6800 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:24:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34A2E1C4101A for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:25:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04D614400C9 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:25:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72D0134AC379 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:24:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F77534AC380 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:24:58 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.72 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:24:58 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,666,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="81209393" Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 09:24:58 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5IGOwB0028929 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:24:58 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5IGOwNK029988 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:24:58 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:24:57 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:24:57 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE16E@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T36 Thread-Index: AcjRW93ynrjh8wgaTKW/sRvbBPY7pwAA/mew From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Jun 2008 16:24:58.0070 (UTC) FILETIME=[D9785760:01C8D15F] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T36 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com All, Here is the IESG Review Comment: T36 - Section 8.1 - 'The WTP retains the configuration of parameters provided by the AC that are non-default values.' - does this mean that any parameter that has a default value needs not be stored in non-volatile memory, and the WTP will restore the defaults for these parameters on all reset, power-up or bootstrap event? Fair comment - the text was clearly vague. I am proposing the following text: 8.1. Configuration Consistency [...] 2. The WTP saves the configuration of parameters provided by the AC that are non-default values into local non-volatile memory, and are enforced during the WTP's power up initialization phase. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 09:25:18 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE6163A6AF3 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:25:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QBb8wJzVbmVE for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:25:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D84C3A6A5A for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:25:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5197D1C40F9D for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:26:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A78F34400C9 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:24:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA19434AC1EE for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:24:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D4A034AC1FB for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:24:49 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.68.10.87 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:24:49 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,666,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="32971183" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 09:24:40 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5IGOePx021361 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:24:40 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5IGOeSx029679 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:24:40 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:24:40 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:24:39 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE16C@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T33 Thread-Index: AcjRXwV/73NznLkxSC27NRHtlNP9IA== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Jun 2008 16:24:40.0046 (UTC) FILETIME=[CEBA18E0:01C8D15F] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T33 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com All, Here is the IESG Review Comment: T33 - Sections 4.6.49, 4.6.50 - Do the statistics counters defined here initialize at zero and wrap-up and start counting from start when the max value is reached? This may seem the obvious behavior, but there are other, so clarifying would be useful. It also would be useful to estimate the minimum wrap-up time for each of the counters. I have addressed both of these sections the same way, since both of the message element's counters are not initialized to zero. 4.6.49. WTP Radio Statistics The WTP Radio Statistics message element is sent by the WTP to the AC to communicate statistics on radio behavior and reasons why the WTP radio has been reset. These counters are never reset on the WTP, and will therefore roll over to zero when the maximum size has been reached. 4.6.50. WTP Reboot Statistics The WTP Reboot Statistics message element is sent by the WTP to the AC to communicate reasons why WTP reboots have occurred. These counters are never reset on the WTP, and will therefore roll over to zero when the maximum size has been reached. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 09:32:01 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5705E3A67DD for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:32:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xA6Stw5uuPqi for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:32:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85C423A67CE for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:32:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C6501C40FCD for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:25:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DFBA4400C9 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:24:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC33D34AC1FD for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:24:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1321F34AC1F5 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:24:48 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.70 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:24:48 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,666,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="42251882" Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 09:24:39 -0700 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5IGOdCa028257 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:24:39 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5IGOd8T011737 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:24:39 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:24:39 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:24:39 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE16A@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T37 Thread-Index: AcjRXNfIdQIr12toSPya4ui9rIYldQ== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Jun 2008 16:24:39.0351 (UTC) FILETIME=[CE500C70:01C8D15F] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T37 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com All, Here is the IESG Review Comment: T37 - Section 8.1 - If the WTP opts to save the configuration locally - how is this option selected? Is this a local WTP configurations issue? If so please specify There are a couple of ways of dealing with this one: 1. The simplest way of dealing with this would be to make this an implementation decision. 2. Allow the AC to configure this behavior. However, this would require new message elements, additional text in the configuration request messages, etc. Given that in the end, it really doesn't matter which way the WTP decides to behave, I would prefer we go with option one and minimize the changes to the spec at this point. Therefore, my proposed text is: 8.1. Configuration Consistency The CAPWAP protocol provides flexibility in how WTP configuration is managed. A WTP can behave in one of two ways, which is implementation specific: PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 10:07:16 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 378B93A69E8 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:07:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9cgpCNR1yzYl for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:07:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7D653A6A28 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:07:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E06343A53D for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:08:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC0F04400CD for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:07:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9792434AC1F2 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:07:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AE933610014 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:07:32 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.71 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:07:31 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,666,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="58177570" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 10:07:31 -0700 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5IH7V6V023531 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:07:31 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5IH7VbC027384 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:07:31 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:07:30 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:05:39 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE1B1@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T3 Thread-Index: AcjRZYjU6qPXRkz+SLeMXbbYH0bnEA== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Jun 2008 17:07:30.0993 (UTC) FILETIME=[CB217A10:01C8D165] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T3 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com All, Here is the IESG Review Comment: T3 - Section 2 - 'Protocol Overview' describes the process of discovery and provisioning exchange between the AC and WTP. This seems to be different than the pre-provisioning phase described in Section 12.5. Please clarify and bring this two sections in synch. Also be more clear what parameters are being provisioned in the provisioning exchanged described here. I think the simplest thing to do is to add a single sentence stating that pre-provisioning is required and a pointer to the appropriate section: 2. Protocol Overview [...] The CAPWAP Protocol begins with a discovery phase. The WTPs send a Discovery Request message, causing any Access Controller (AC) receiving the message to respond with a Discovery Response message. From the Discovery Response messages received, a WTP selects an AC with which to establish a secure DTLS session. In order to establish the secure DTLS connection, the WTP will need some amount of pre-provisioning, which is specified in section 12.5. CAPWAP protocol messages will be fragmented to the maximum length discovered to be supported by the network. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 10:07:18 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3063F3A69E8 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:07:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V+82vAGg8bbf for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:07:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B17A3A67CE for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:07:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBD7E43A502 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:08:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D88854400CA for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:07:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0D5234AC1F8 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:07:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 042AA3610013 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:07:32 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.70 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:07:31 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,666,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="42269169" Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 10:07:31 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5IH7VQB021410 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:07:31 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5IH7Njn015167 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:07:31 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:07:30 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:07:30 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE1AE@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T39 Thread-Index: AcjRYa3C0bnbeGsrQvGRE/kpEcRVLw== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Jun 2008 17:07:30.0520 (UTC) FILETIME=[CAD94D80:01C8D165] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T39 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com All, Here is the IESG Review Comment: T39. Section 13 is insufficient. The recommendation concerning non-configurability of WTPs makes, sense, but what about the ACS? How are ACs configured? It is OK to say that they are configured by proprietary CLI and/or MIB interfaces that will be defined in other CAPWAP document and/or by NETCONF in the future, but something needs to be said. You are correct, the CAPWAP protocol does not provide management of the AC. This is assumed to be done out of band. I am therefore proposing the following text: 13. Management Considerations [...] The CAPWAP protocol does not deal with the management of the ACs. The AC is assumed to be configured through some separate management interface, which could be via a proprietary CLI, SNMP, NETCONF or some other management protocol. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 10:08:13 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CF6E28C0FA for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:08:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eCbeaH1yJGAw for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:08:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED7F53A6B67 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:08:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 684C543A21C for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:09:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A81E34400CA for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:07:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D39E834AC3A8 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:07:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3C0E34AC1F6 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:07:38 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.117 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:07:38 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,666,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="115134311" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 10:07:34 -0700 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5IH7VN0013721 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:07:31 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5IH7VbA027384 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:07:31 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:07:30 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:07:30 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE1B0@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T16 Thread-Index: AcjRZJ67fXcwXVF2Q+aqIjuMbO8x0A== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Jun 2008 17:07:30.0962 (UTC) FILETIME=[CB1CBF20:01C8D165] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T16 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com All, Here is the IESG Review Comment: T16 - the document is not consistent in defining which one of the configuration objects is to be saved in non-volatile memory. For example in 4.6.7 it is mentioned that this message element information is not expected to be saved in non-volatile memory - if this is an exception what is the rule? Yes, it is an exception to the rule. However, to make this point clear, I have added text to section 4.6: 4.6. CAPWAP Protocol Message Elements [...] Unless otherwise specified, any configuration information sent by the AC to the WTP MAY be saved to non-volatile storage (see section 8.1 for more information). PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 10:08:15 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24E6E3A6B6F for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:08:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mP40DPo6IkQ0 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:08:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BE373A6B67 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:08:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C5B043A4FE for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:09:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BA7C4400CA for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:07:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C554634AC234 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:07:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EF7A3610019 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:07:32 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.70 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:07:32 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,666,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="42269170" Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 10:07:31 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5IH7VHc021412 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:07:31 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5IH7Njp015167 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:07:31 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:07:30 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:07:30 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE1AF@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T40 Thread-Index: AcjRY5z4L7JXCjOWR1OVqaCJuK0ibA== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Jun 2008 17:07:30.0582 (UTC) FILETIME=[CAE2C360:01C8D165] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T40 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com All, Here is the IESG Review Comment: T40 - The same section should include information about impact on network traffic. What is the extra level of traffic that is expected by introducing and deploying CAPWAP? Is there any limit of AC load that needs to be taken into consideration in order to avoid congestion on the network or on the AC? Probably this section should be renamed to also cover Operational considerations, I have added the following paragraph to the section, along with the modified section name: 13. Operational Considerations [...] The CAPWAP protocol's control channel is fairly light weight from a traffic perspective. Once the WTP has been configured, the WTP sends periodic statistics. Further, the specification calls for a keepalive packet to be sent on the protocol's data channel to make sure that any possible middleboxes (e.g., NAT) maintain their UDP state. The overhead associated with the control and data channel is not expected to impact network traffic. That said, the CAPWAP protocol does allow for the frequency of these packets to be modified through the DataChannelKeepAlive and StatisticsTimer (see section 4.7.2 and section 4.7.14, respectively). PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 10:56:58 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDCA23A693F for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:56:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.58 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.019, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AOd8maZzr2DQ for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:56:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05A2A3A68B1 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:56:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 943DD175198F for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:57:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66F934400C1 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:57:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B2AF34AC213 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:57:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B93B434AC1F1 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:57:34 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com (nj300815-nj-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.12.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:57:34 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,666,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="123918897" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 13:57:33 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,666,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="220474655" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 13:57:32 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 19:57:31 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE1AF@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T40 Thread-Index: AcjRY5z4L7JXCjOWR1OVqaCJuK0ibAACSQOQ References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE1AF@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T40 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 8:08 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T40 > > All, > > Here is the IESG Review Comment: > > T40 - The same section should include information about > impact on network traffic. > What is the extra level of traffic that is expected by > introducing and deploying > CAPWAP? Is there any limit of AC load that needs to be > taken into consideration in > order to avoid congestion on the network or on the AC? > Probably this section should > be renamed to also cover Operational considerations, > > I have added the following paragraph to the section, along > with the modified section name: > > > 13. Operational Considerations > [...] > > The CAPWAP protocol's control channel is fairly light weight from > a traffic perspective. Once the WTP has been configured, > the WTP sends > periodic statistics. Further, the specification calls for > a keepalive > packet to be sent on the protocol's data channel to make > sure that any > possible middleboxes (e.g., NAT) maintain their UDP state. > The overhead > associated with the control and data channel is not > expected to impact > network traffic. That said, the CAPWAP protocol does allow for the > frequency of these packets to be modified through the > DataChannelKeepAlive and StatisticsTimer (see section 4.7.2 and > section 4.7.14, respectively). > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 10:58:07 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6BFA28C0F3 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:58:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.58 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.019, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CSVPyS+3iwjJ for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:58:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEF563A687E for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:58:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88F4643A22A for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:58:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A86A54400C9 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:58:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C7DB34AC1F6 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:58:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BB1C34AC1F3 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:58:39 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:58:38 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,666,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="131818471" Received: from unknown (HELO nj300815-nj-erheast.avaya.com) ([198.152.6.5]) by co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 13:58:38 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,666,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="213725806" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by nj300815-nj-erheast-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 13:58:37 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 19:58:35 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE1B0@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T16 Thread-Index: AcjRZJ67fXcwXVF2Q+aqIjuMbO8x0AACEdkg References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE1B0@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T16 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 8:08 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T16 > > All, > > Here is the IESG Review Comment: > > T16 - the document is not consistent in defining which one > of the configuration > objects is to be saved in non-volatile memory. For example > in 4.6.7 it is mentioned > that this message element information is not expected to > be saved in non-volatile > memory - if this is an exception what is the rule? > > Yes, it is an exception to the rule. However, to make this > point clear, I have added text to section 4.6: > > > 4.6. CAPWAP Protocol Message Elements > [...] > Unless otherwise specified, any configuration information > sent by the > AC to the WTP MAY be saved to non-volatile storage (see section 8.1 > for more information). > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 10:59:02 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A7E23A695D for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:59:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.58 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.019, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QRiJJIG4L3cg for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:59:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB6293A687E for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:59:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66EB843A084 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:59:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39F3A4400C1 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:59:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 069D734AC1F6 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:59:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E72134AC234 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:59:24 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Sender first seen 1 day 23:55:47 ago / dynamic or unknown reverse DNS) Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:59:24 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,666,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="111711832" Received: from unknown (HELO nj300815-nj-erheast.avaya.com) ([198.152.6.5]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 13:59:22 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,666,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="213725975" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by nj300815-nj-erheast-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 13:59:22 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 19:59:20 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE1AE@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T39 Thread-Index: AcjRYa3C0bnbeGsrQvGRE/kpEcRVLwAC1YFw References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE1AE@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T39 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 8:08 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T39 > > All, > > Here is the IESG Review Comment: > > T39. Section 13 is insufficient. The recommendation > concerning non-configurability > of WTPs makes, sense, but what about the ACS? How are ACs > configured? > It is OK to > say that they are configured by proprietary CLI and/or MIB > interfaces that will be > defined in other CAPWAP document and/or by NETCONF in the > future, but something > needs to be said. > > You are correct, the CAPWAP protocol does not provide > management of the AC. This is assumed to be done out of band. > I am therefore proposing the following text: > > > 13. Management Considerations > [...] > The CAPWAP protocol does not deal with the management of the ACs. > The AC is assumed to be configured through some separate management > interface, which could be via a proprietary CLI, SNMP, > NETCONF or some > other management protocol. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 10:59:31 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18D0628C1C9 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:59:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.581 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.581 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.018, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P-VljnL-Ec7H for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:59:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A23528C1C2 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:59:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1C5843A22E for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:00:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 471184400C1 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:00:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FF3434AC375 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:00:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90D4D34AC1F1 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:00:01 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com (nj300815-nj-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.12.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:00:01 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,666,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="123919187" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 14:00:00 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,666,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="220475368" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 14:00:00 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 19:59:58 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE1B1@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T3 Thread-Index: AcjRZYjU6qPXRkz+SLeMXbbYH0bnEAAB5GSA References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE1B1@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T3 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 8:06 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T3 > > All, > > Here is the IESG Review Comment: > > T3 - Section 2 - 'Protocol Overview' describes the process > of discovery and > provisioning exchange between the AC and WTP. This seems > to be different than the > pre-provisioning phase described in Section 12.5. > Please clarify and bring this two sections in synch. Also > be more clear what > parameters are being provisioned in the provisioning > exchanged described here. > > I think the simplest thing to do is to add a single sentence > stating that pre-provisioning is required and a pointer to > the appropriate > section: > > > 2. Protocol Overview > [...] > > The CAPWAP Protocol begins with a discovery phase. The WTPs send a > Discovery Request message, causing any Access Controller (AC) > receiving the message to respond with a Discovery Response message. > From the Discovery Response messages received, a WTP selects an AC > with which to establish a secure DTLS session. In order to > establish the secure DTLS connection, the WTP will need some amount > of pre-provisioning, which is specified in section 12.5. CAPWAP > protocol messages will be fragmented to the maximum length > discovered to be supported by the network. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 11:08:26 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C02628C1D9 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:08:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.581 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.581 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.018, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kkMopEZPKNRi for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:08:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 895AC28C1DB for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:08:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09E2D1C40FB1 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:09:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C293F4400B5 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:09:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02AA234AC3D1 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:09:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32A5134AC1F1 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:08:42 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:08:41 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,666,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="131820102" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 14:08:41 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,666,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="220478954" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 14:08:40 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 20:08:39 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE16C@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T33 Thread-Index: AcjRXwV/73NznLkxSC27NRHtlNP9IAADvpaA References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE16C@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T33 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Much of this is fine, but you did not answer the second part of the question. For counters that wrap-up it is good to know what is the theoretical minimal roll-out time so that a manager knows at what intervals he needs to query the counters to avoid situations where two wrap-up events happened between readings. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 7:25 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T33 > > All, > > Here is the IESG Review Comment: > > T33 - Sections 4.6.49, 4.6.50 - Do the statistics counters > defined here initialize > at zero and wrap-up and start counting from start when the > max value is reached? > This may seem the obvious behavior, but there are other, > so clarifying would be > useful. It also would be useful to estimate the minimum > wrap-up time for each of > the counters. > > I have addressed both of these sections the same way, since > both of the message element's counters are not initialized to zero. > > > 4.6.49. WTP Radio Statistics > > The WTP Radio Statistics message element is sent by the > WTP to the AC > to communicate statistics on radio behavior and reasons why the WTP > radio has been reset. These counters are never reset on > the WTP, and > will therefore roll over to zero when the maximum size has been > reached. > > 4.6.50. WTP Reboot Statistics > > The WTP Reboot Statistics message element is sent by the WTP to the > AC to communicate reasons why WTP reboots have occurred. These > counters are never reset on the WTP, and will therefore > roll over to > zero when the maximum size has been reached. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 11:14:19 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DC1B28C1DC for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:14:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.581 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.581 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.018, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SVDxSqGGPSPI for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:14:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7397828C1D7 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:14:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D383A1C40FEC for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:15:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF9D04400B5 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:14:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BB4A34AC3A3 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:14:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E15C34AC3D4 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:14:37 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Sender first seen 2 days 00:11:00 ago / dynamic or unknown reverse DNS) Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:14:36 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,666,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="111713892" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 14:14:35 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,667,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="220481408" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 14:14:34 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 20:14:32 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE16A@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T37 Thread-Index: AcjRXNfIdQIr12toSPya4ui9rIYldQAEa8og References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE16A@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T37 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 7:25 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T37 > > All, > > Here is the IESG Review Comment: > > T37 - Section 8.1 - If the WTP opts to save the > configuration locally > - how is this > option selected? Is this a local WTP configurations issue? > If so please specify > > There are a couple of ways of dealing with this one: > 1. The simplest way of dealing with this would be to make > this an implementation decision. > 2. Allow the AC to configure this behavior. However, this > would require new message elements, additional text in the > configuration request messages, etc. > > Given that in the end, it really doesn't matter which way the > WTP decides to behave, I would prefer we go with option one > and minimize the changes to the spec at this point. > Therefore, my proposed text is: > > > 8.1. Configuration Consistency > > The CAPWAP protocol provides flexibility in how WTP > configuration is > managed. A WTP can behave in one of two ways, which is > implementation specific: > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 11:15:18 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A06428C1DB for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:15:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.581 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.581 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.018, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id n0qEPW+HSccD for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:15:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DD9A28C1D7 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:15:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E6A21843BB2 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:16:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9815F4400C9 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:15:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D08D234AC3A4 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:15:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DCBE34AC3A0 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:15:42 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Sender first seen 2 days 00:12:05 ago / dynamic or unknown reverse DNS) Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:15:41 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,666,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="111714025" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 14:15:40 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,667,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="220481641" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 14:15:39 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 20:15:38 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE16E@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T36 Thread-Index: AcjRW93ynrjh8wgaTKW/sRvbBPY7pwAA/mewAAPZ1BA= References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE16E@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T36 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK with me. (aha!) Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 7:25 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T36 > > All, > > Here is the IESG Review Comment: > > T36 - Section 8.1 - 'The WTP retains the configuration of > parameters provided by > the AC that are non-default values.' - does this mean that > any parameter that has a > default value needs not be stored in non-volatile memory, > and the WTP will restore > the defaults for these parameters on all reset, power-up > or bootstrap event? > > Fair comment - the text was clearly vague. I am proposing the > following > text: > > > 8.1. Configuration Consistency > [...] > > 2. The WTP saves the configuration of parameters provided by the > AC that are non-default values into local non-volatile memory, > and are enforced during the WTP's power up initialization phase. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 17:26:00 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD0F33A67A1 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0JDczxDEKgDW for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:25:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3CDA3A694F for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:25:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6C8443A548 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 570F54400AA for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7C5B3610025 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57E513610016 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:26 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.68.10.87 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:26 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,668,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="33054630" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 17:26:21 -0700 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5J0QLtZ012167 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:21 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5J0QLHP028737 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:26:21 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:21 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:20 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE475@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E11 Thread-Index: AcjRbk4vcYav4ecNSHmaL1YBHACLSA== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 00:26:21.0273 (UTC) FILETIME=[19335C90:01C8D1A3] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E11 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com All, Here is the IESG Review Comment: E11. Section 3.4 - s/the CAPWAP protocol can be used in any network configuration/the CAPWAP protocol can be used in any network topology including firewall, NAT and middlebox devices/ I have made the requested change. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 17:26:02 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80D0F3A69D8 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H-y-T2tMtq1A for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C26863A67A1 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E28743A24E for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 641CD4400BC for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 364E83610016 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84DBA3610014 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:27 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.68.10.87 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:27 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,668,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="33054633" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 17:26:22 -0700 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5J0QM3L012179 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:22 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5J0QMeo022792 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:26:22 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:21 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:21 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE478@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E14 Thread-Index: AcjRbyKv8zQQEE0VRfqL82DYbLGRXA== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 00:26:21.0929 (UTC) FILETIME=[19977590:01C8D1A3] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E14 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com All, Here is the IESG Review Comment: E14 Section 4.5.2 s/802.1P/802.1Q/ s/precedence value/priority tag/ s/DSCP tag value/DSCP value/ I have made the requested change. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 17:26:02 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C53833A67A1 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GnDdsHpB3I1B for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC7A53A694F for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3AF843A20D for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 550464400AA for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 304153610018 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 403E3361001E for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:28 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.70 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:28 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,668,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="42404669" Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 17:26:20 -0700 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5J0QKFO013954 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:20 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5J0QKU9028731 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:26:20 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:20 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:20 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE472@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E1 Thread-Index: AcjRbB6awi5tPxeISG2omFbeJdOb1A== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 00:26:20.0617 (UTC) FILETIME=[18CF4390:01C8D1A3] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E1 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com All, Here is the IESG Review Comment: E1 - In the Abstract section, please eliminate the phrase 'The CAPWAP protocol meets the IETF CAPWAP working group protocol requirements.' or replace it with something that points to a reference less ephemeral than the CAPWAP WG. I have changed the sentence to: Abstract [...] The CAPWAP protocol meets the Objectives for Control and Provisioning of Wireless Access Points (CAPWAP) [RFC4564]. _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 17:26:13 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65CF83A6AEC for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 07ofbGWFNnBK for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90B163A6843 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D8F943A7E9 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5EFB4400BC for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A03AA361001E for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D34BB3610024 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:28 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.68.10.87 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:27 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,668,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="33054635" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 17:26:23 -0700 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5J0QNtE012193 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:23 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5J0QNB8022797 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:26:23 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:22 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:22 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE47B@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: CAPWAP IESG Review E17 Thread-Index: AcjRcVoYJHqQ7qSwQNemjpRXK78H4Q== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 00:26:22.0940 (UTC) FILETIME=[1A31B9C0:01C8D1A3] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review E17 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com All, Here is the IESG Review Comment: E17 - Some of the message diagrams are numbered as Figures, some are not. For example the diagram at page 14-15 is not numbered, while the one at page 119 is numbered as Figure 5. Please pick a consistent choice (I prefer numbering) I have made the requested change, and use numbering consistently throughout the spec. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 17:27:15 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D43B3A694F for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:27:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9Fuw8vBZHNU1 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:27:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84E893A6B81 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:27:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7468917519BE for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:28:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 297E84400B4 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EFFB361001F for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B5D1361000A for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:29 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.70 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:28 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,668,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="42404671" Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 17:26:21 -0700 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5J0QLaj013958 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:21 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5J0QKiT022780 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:26:20 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:20 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:20 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE473@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E4 Thread-Index: AcjRbK/oTL4eSoxLR1q7zP5kMu75mQ== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 00:26:20.0836 (UTC) FILETIME=[18F0AE40:01C8D1A3] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E4 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com All, Here is the IESG Review Comment: E4. Section 2.1: 'The CAPWAP protocol is independent of a specific WTP radio technology.' My understanding is that CAPWAP is independent not only of the radio technology but also of the layer 2 protocol. I suggest to mention this. I am proposing changing the sentence to now read: 2.1. Wireless Binding Definition [...] The CAPWAP protocol is independent of a specific WTP radio technology, as well its associated wireless link layer protocol. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 17:42:14 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F9BE3A69D1 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:42:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dPCNumL8z1EB for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:42:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1E393A68C6 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:42:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FAA017519C2 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:28:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 246894400AA for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D854C3610023 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8E483610016 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:29 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.70 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:28 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,668,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="42404676" Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 17:26:21 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5J0QL4N013970 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:21 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5J0QLo0023238 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:26:21 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:21 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:21 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE476@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E12 Thread-Index: AcjRboPlbKio5BEwRziD9Q5Ti5tyLw== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 00:26:21.0492 (UTC) FILETIME=[1954C740:01C8D1A3] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E12 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com All, Here is the IESG Review Comment: E12. Section 4.1, page 45 - s/The reason for this header/The reason for this preamble/ I have made the requested change. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 17:42:14 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E1853A68C6 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:42:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JJfLpZfbBvIP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:42:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5159C3A67A1 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:42:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC6E41C40FC4 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:27:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74A0E4400BD for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E77A3610014 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 162DA3610026 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:29 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.72 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:28 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,668,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="81394949" Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 17:26:22 -0700 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5J0QNVA013994 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:23 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5J0QMwd028749 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:26:22 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:22 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:22 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE47A@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E16 Thread-Index: AcjRcDvVb4amMmLTTz2vAnJjlJLqJQ== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 00:26:22.0721 (UTC) FILETIME=[1A104F10:01C8D1A3] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E16 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com All, Here is the IESG Review Comment: E16 - Sections 4.7.10, 4.7.11, 4.7.12, 4.7.13, 4.7.14 (maybe, not clear what this is, see technical comment), 4.7.15, 4.7.16 are not timers but time-related configuration variables. The name of section 4.7 needs to be changed You are correct that 4.7.10 needs to move to section 4.8. However, I disagree that the rest are not timers. They are all timers. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 17:42:18 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41B873A68C6 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:42:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m-1wi4e7ql-R for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:42:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D0DB3A67A1 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:42:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 448B01C410EE for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:27:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A2384400B4 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2A89361000A for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12BF2361001B for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:26 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.72 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:26 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,668,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="81394946" Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 17:26:22 -0700 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5J0QMHY013990 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:22 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5J0QMw6028746 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:26:22 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:22 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:22 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE479@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E15 Thread-Index: AcjRb1IjhLic2uX5TYer6QaV+ZO3Kw== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 00:26:22.0502 (UTC) FILETIME=[19EEE460:01C8D1A3] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E15 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com All, Here is the IESG Review Comment: E15. Section 4.7, page 83 - s/This section contains the CAPWAP timers/This section contains the definition of the CAPWAP timers I have made the requested change. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 17:58:23 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 658B33A6823 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:58:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tbGUHEDQMTOn for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:58:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31C153A67A1 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:58:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2AB717519A8 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:59:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D6D14400C1 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:59:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85D473618001 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:59:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16A2D3618004 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:59:00 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.117 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:58:59 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,668,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="115327644" Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 17:58:59 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5J0wxKR016517 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:58:59 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5J0wxhh012567 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:58:59 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:58:58 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:58:58 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE4A5@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: New Issue 99: CAPWAP Timers not referencing timers properly Thread-Index: AcjRp6fYueYdcZH4SBm9GABa8arKmA== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 00:58:59.0187 (UTC) FILETIME=[A8355430:01C8D1A7] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] New Issue 99: CAPWAP Timers not referencing timers properly X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com In cleaning up text for IESG Review Comment T1, I noticed that the CAPWAP Timers message element, which is used by the AC to send timer information to the WTP, does not reference the actual timers in section 4.7. I have added the proper references: 4.6.14. CAPWAP Timers [...] Discovery: The number of seconds between CAPWAP Discovery messages, when the WTP is in the discovery phase. This value is used to configure the MaxDiscoveryInterval timer (see Section 4.7.9). Echo Request: The number of seconds between WTP Echo Request CAPWAP messages. This value is used to configure the EchoInterval timer (see Section 4.7.7). PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 17:58:51 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC5383A6843 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:58:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Hu4nhfAEa8en for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:58:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A5DD3A682B for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:58:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86B481C41126 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:27:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD1AE4400C6 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95ED5361001B for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8ADED3610022 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:28 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.70 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:28 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,668,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="42404674" Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 17:26:21 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5J0QLSb010114 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:21 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5J0QLmK023233 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:26:21 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:20 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:20 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE474@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E5 Thread-Index: AcjRbaZMosT1iijKSsOzW52aLvpowQ== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 00:26:21.0054 (UTC) FILETIME=[1911F1E0:01C8D1A3] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E5 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com All, Here is the IESG Review Comment: E5. First paragraph in Section 2.2 - what 'ideal case' means here? And what 'idealized illustration' means in the last paragraph of the same section? Maybe what is meant is simplified? Fair comment. I have modified the text to now read: 2.2. CAPWAP Session Establishment Overview This section describes the session establishment process message exchanges between a CAPWAP WTP and AC. [...] At the end of the illustrated CAPWAP message exchange, the AC and WTP are securely exchanging CAPWAP control messages. This illustration is provided to clarify protocol operation, and does not include any possible error conditions. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 17:58:54 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9D7B3A67EF for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:58:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tGVQ6j1mR93N for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:58:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE72C3A682B for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:58:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 207931C4108B for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:27:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D82064400BD for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFD1B3610014 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21114361001C for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:28 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.72 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:28 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,668,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="81394953" Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 17:26:23 -0700 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5J0QNg6014006 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:23 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5J0QNSJ028753 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:26:23 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:22 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:22 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE47C@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E8 Thread-Index: AcjRch60MZxMFyxaQ8OS2PUdzaR2Yg== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 00:26:23.0159 (UTC) FILETIME=[1A532470:01C8D1A3] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E8 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com All, Here is the IESG Review Comment: E8. Section 2.3, page 18 'Discovery Thread' - 'The state machine transitions in figure 3 are represented by numerals.' - is this true? Are not state transitions like Discovery to Discovery or Discovery to Sulking, etc. represented by special signs, so this should be rather 'represented by discovery and special signs'? Actually, no. The text reads: Since the WTP only communicates with a single AC, it only has a single instance of the CAPWAP state machine. The state machine works differently on the AC since it communicates with many WTPs. The AC uses the concept of three threads.... So the state transitions that you refer to are invalid on the AC. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 17:58:54 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3E0B3A67A1 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:58:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lrUG1cYkPG3U for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:58:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0ED903A6843 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:58:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB6301C41050 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:27:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 981A54400B4 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67FC83610018 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B421361001F for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:28 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.68.10.87 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:27 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,668,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="33054632" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 17:26:22 -0700 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5J0QMoU012175 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:22 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5J0QLAp028741 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:26:21 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:21 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:26:21 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE477@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E13 Thread-Index: AcjRbuPE9i15YJIqSACRfQv29CF7tQ== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 00:26:21.0710 (UTC) FILETIME=[19760AE0:01C8D1A3] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E13 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com All, Here is the IESG Review Comment: E13. Section 4.4.1 - title should be CAPWAP Data Channel Keepalive to be consistent with the rest of the text I have made the requested change, and found another reference in the NAT considerations section that was not using the proper name. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 18:01:03 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE94D3A68B7 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:01:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 41+WFCUBP7YD for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:01:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04F013A682B for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:01:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BB5D43A230 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:01:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E9C24400BD for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:01:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39D763618004 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:01:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4B753618003 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:01:40 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.68.10.87 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:01:40 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,668,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="33062333" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 18:01:40 -0700 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5J11eXO019576 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:01:40 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5J11elY022000 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:01:40 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:01:40 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:01:39 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE4A9@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: New Issue 100: Editorial issue in 4.6.15 Thread-Index: AcjRqAe7I6HCsmQlQXW1tgMB7zdWow== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 01:01:40.0334 (UTC) FILETIME=[084268E0:01C8D1A8] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] New Issue 100: Editorial issue in 4.6.15 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com This is a very minor issue, but there needs to be a separator between the enumerated list and the associated text. I added the ':' characters below to make the text more readable. 4.6.15. CAPWAP Transport Protocol 1 - UDP-Lite: The UDP-Lite transport protocol is to be used for the CAPWAP data channel. Note that this option is illegal is either the WTP or the AC uses IPv4. 2 - UDP: The UDP transport protocol is to be used for the CAPWAP data channel. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 18:07:24 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92F1228C1E4 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:07:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GiAOpsM7N50J for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:07:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEC6E28C1E3 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:07:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A6BA1C40F93 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:08:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C08924400BD for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:08:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97E5D361800A for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:08:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18F483618001 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:08:03 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.68.10.86 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com (sj-iport-4.cisco.com [171.68.10.86]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:08:03 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,668,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="16198420" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 18:08:02 -0700 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5J181uM019405 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:08:01 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5J181L7027858 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:08:01 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:08:01 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:08:00 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE4AE@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: New Issue 101: Error in message element figure in 4.6.32 Thread-Index: AcjRqOqyfkOc5l95QFqZqIW7WCTdBg== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 01:08:01.0360 (UTC) FILETIME=[EB5E5D00:01C8D1A8] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] New Issue 101: Error in message element figure in 4.6.32 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Very minor issue, but the figure is broken. It was missing some of the '+-' characters, and the numbering was strange. This is not changing anything technical, it is an editorial issue. 4.6.32. Maximum Message Length [...] 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Maximum Message Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 18:11:19 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F5EF28C1D7 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:11:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ppj6OFXNgo1e for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:11:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B756C28C1CF for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:11:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DB551C40FD9 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:12:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D1E64400C8 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:11:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7A6A3618003 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:11:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EBDD3618005 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:11:57 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.68.10.87 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:11:57 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,668,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="33066388" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 18:11:57 -0700 Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com (sj-core-4.cisco.com [171.68.223.138]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5J1BvHY024778 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:11:57 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5J1BvKm003348 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:11:57 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:11:56 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:11:55 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE4B0@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T1 Thread-Index: AcjRqXbxpMl5PbpyTiCCHyy4zLoIJA== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 01:11:56.0901 (UTC) FILETIME=[77C31150:01C8D1A9] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T1 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com All, Here is the IESG Review Comment: T1 - a generic comment. In many protocol fields definitions the document lacks max size or max length definitions. I tried but I may have not caught them all. Is the assumption made that for all these fields always the maximum capacity should be reserved? In this case I suggest that a clarification is made in Section 1.2. I prefer however explicit definition of max size and max length whenever needed, as it is not always necessary and wise from a resources point of view to design for max values. Many of these instances have been addressed through other technical comments, so I am going through the spec now and addressing what I believe are the remaining ones: 4.6.7. Add MAC ACL Entry [...] Num of Entries: The number of instances of the Type/MAC Addresses fields in the array. This value MUST NOT exceed 1024. 4.6.9. Add Static MAC ACL Entry [...] Num of Entries: The number of instances of the Type/MAC Addresses fields in the array. This value MUST NOT exceed 1024. 4.6.10. CAPWAP Control IPv4 Address [...] WTP Count: The number of WTPs currently connected to the interface, with a maximum value of 65535. 4.6.11. CAPWAP Control IPv6 Address [...] WTP Count: The number of WTPs currently connected to the interface, with a maximum value of 65535. 4.6.22. Delete Static MAC ACL Entry [...] Num of Entries: The number of instances of the Type/MAC Addresses fields in the array. This field MUST NOT exceed the value of 1024. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 18:12:32 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F8FD28C1E4 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:12:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 40z++-CfKzNT for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:12:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D73028C1CF for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:12:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDF7A1C40FDA for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:13:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 377404400C8 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:13:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1767361800A for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:13:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DEFE3618009 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:13:10 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.68.10.86 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com (sj-iport-4.cisco.com [171.68.10.86]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:13:10 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,668,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="16199704" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 18:13:10 -0700 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5J1DAWl003004; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:13:10 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5J1DACG002878; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:13:10 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:13:10 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:13:08 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE4B2@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review T9 Thread-Index: AcjP0viq5467ANBmQ/+Y/F/Rh5VTKQACCNzgAHOa6XA= References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E981CD@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 01:13:10.0207 (UTC) FILETIME=[A374ACF0:01C8D1A9] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review T9 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Ok - closing issue 50. PatC -----Original Message----- From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 11:02 AM To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap@frascone.com Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review T9 OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 8:04 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review T9 > > All, > > Here is the IESG Review Comment: > > T9 - Section 4.4.2 - what is the max size of IEEE 802.3 frames that > is being > supported? Is IEEE 802.3as supported. Please detail > > I am proposing the following text: > > > 4.4.2. Data Payload > [...] > > For 802.3 payload frames, the 802.3 frame is encapsulated > (excluding > the IEEE 802.3 FCS checksum). If the encapsulated frame would > exceed > the transport layer's MTU, the sender is responsible for > fragmentation of the frame, as specified in Section 3.4. The CAPWAP > protocol can support IEEE 802.3 frames whose length is defined in > the IEEE 802.3as specification [FRAME-EXT]. > > 17.1. Normative References > [...] > [FRAME-EXT] > IEEE, "IEEE Standard 802.3as-2006", 2006. > > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 18:13:04 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B25628C1E8 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:13:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XSUKOEAqd6Vw for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:13:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 638AA28C1E4 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:13:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E35961C40FAF for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:13:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5CCB4400C8 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:13:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90E34361800A for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:13:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0477B3618001 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:13:42 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.72 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:13:41 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,668,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="81404928" Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 18:13:41 -0700 Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com (sj-core-3.cisco.com [171.68.223.137]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5J1DfV2005615; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:13:41 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5J1Dfjn020907; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:13:41 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:13:41 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:13:39 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE4B3@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T28 Thread-Index: AcjP2wjdh9C2vO7bQi29mNQvKyoYcwAAKpDQAHN/h6A= References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E9823E@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 01:13:41.0523 (UTC) FILETIME=[B61F1E30:01C8D1A9] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T28 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Ok, closing issue 69. PatC -----Original Message----- From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 11:07 AM To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap@frascone.com Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T28 OK with me. (although I am not crazy about fields that carry vendor specific information in standards because they create no multivendor interoperability) Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 9:02 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T28 > > All, > > Here is the IESG Review Comment: > > T28 - Section 4.6.39 - I do not understand the semantics of the > value field - what > does 'The value associated with the vendor specific element' mean? > Is this one byte > as the diagram shows, or variable length as indicated by the fact > that the length > of the message shows >=7? If variable length what is the max > length? > > Here is my proposed changes, and note tha I picked 2048 octets as the > maximum length for the vendor specific info: > > > 4.6.39. Vendor Specific Payload > [...] > > Data: Variable length vendor specific information, whose > contents and format are proprietary and understood > based on the Element ID field. This field MUST NOT > exceed 2048 octets. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 18:13:45 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A03D628C1E8 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:13:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rRn6Wv5190DB for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:13:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A376628C1EC for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:13:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB4231C40FD2 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:14:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4BDA4400C8 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:14:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF7313618009 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:14:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29D363618001 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:14:23 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.71 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:14:23 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,669,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="58345902" Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 18:14:22 -0700 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5J1EMnK002636; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:14:22 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5J1EM8j003956; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:14:22 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:14:22 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:14:21 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE4B4@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T15 Thread-Index: AcjPLTVEQAnGzPu/Q1yv6xQingNpWQAneBlgAARIQdAAc2HpoA== References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98139@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98169@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 01:14:22.0721 (UTC) FILETIME=[CEAD6F10:01C8D1A9] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T15 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Closing issue 56. PatC -----Original Message----- From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 11:10 AM To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap@frascone.com Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T15 OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 7:08 PM > To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap@frascone.com > Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T15 > > This should have been T15. > > PatC > > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 8:36 AM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T14 > > All, > > Here is the IESG Review Comment: > > T15 - Section 4.6.4, 4,6,5 - what is the max size of the AC names? > > I am proposing the following resolution, and figured that the proposed > maximum size is 512 bytes for an AC name: > > > 4.6.4. AC Name > [...] > > AC Name: A variable length UTF-8 encoded string containing the AC > name, whose maximum size MUST NOT exceed 512 bytes. > > 4.6.5. AC Name with Index > [...] > > AC Name: A variable length UTF-8 encoded string containing the AC > name, whose maximum size MUST NOT exceed 512 bytes. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 18:14:15 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2947428C1FB for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:14:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WSxg87TjX9vv for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:14:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F14428C1F8 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:14:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D39A11C40FEB for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:15:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 001514400C8 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:14:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7683361800C for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:14:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1873B3618010 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:14:52 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.68.10.86 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com (sj-iport-4.cisco.com [171.68.10.86]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:14:52 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,668,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="16200169" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 18:14:51 -0700 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5J1EqS4028720; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:14:52 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5J1Ep4q028168; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:14:51 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:14:51 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:14:50 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE4B6@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T14 Thread-Index: AcjPLHdhTR+F4WByRSqzJvoOJYfcTgAnpOtgAARQJqAAc2IMIA== References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98138@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98168@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 01:14:51.0511 (UTC) FILETIME=[DFD67070:01C8D1A9] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T14 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK, closing issue 55. PatC -----Original Message----- From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 11:11 AM To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap@frascone.com Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T14 OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 7:07 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T14 > > This should have been T14 > > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 8:36 AM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment > > All, > > The IESG Review Comment says > > T14 - Sections 4.6.2, 4.6.3 - what is the max number of IP > addresses > on the two > lists? > > Here is the proposed text. I picked a maximum number that seems big > enough in my personal opinion. > > > 4.6.2. AC IPv4 List > [...] > > AC IP Address: An array of 32-bit integers containing > AC IPv4 Addresses, containing no more than 1024 > addresses. > > 4.6.3. AC IPv6 List > [...] > > AC IP Address: An array of 128-bit integers containing > AC IPv6 Addresses, containing no more than 1024 > addresses. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 18:14:51 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE85928C1FE for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:14:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WqYVP6PGBKNk for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:14:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD2B928C1FD for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:14:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67A631C40546 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:15:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D58F44400C8 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:15:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA338361800A for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:15:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D72833618009 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:15:28 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.68.10.86 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com (sj-iport-4.cisco.com [171.68.10.86]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:15:28 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,668,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="16200331" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 18:15:28 -0700 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5J1FSP0006331; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:15:28 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5J1FSLs028906; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:15:28 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:15:28 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:15:26 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE4B7@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T19 Thread-Index: AcjPMMu852BW1hyNTye1SUgnqWdM6QAloRYwAAVG9mAAc2By4A== References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98147@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 01:15:28.0344 (UTC) FILETIME=[F5CAB580:01C8D1A9] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T19 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK, closing issue 60. PatC -----Original Message----- From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 11:12 AM To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap@frascone.com Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T19 OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 6:41 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T19 > > All, > > Here is the IESG Review Comment: > > T19 - Section 4.6.16 - what is the max size of the Data field in > the Data transfer > Data message? > > I have addressed the comment by imposing a maximum length of 65535. > > > > 4.6.16. Data Transfer Data > [...] > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Data Type | Data Length | Data .... > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > [...] > > Data Length: Length of data field, with a maximum size of 65535. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 18:15:24 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88B0028C1D7 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:15:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JH0bjxMe-Avr for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:15:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C055628C1EC for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:15:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B49C43A22E for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:16:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A2594400C8 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:16:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 185C0361800D for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:16:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9700B3618001 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:16:03 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.117 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:16:03 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,669,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="115332154" Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 18:16:03 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5J1G3Df008933; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:16:03 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5J1G3al028262; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:16:03 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:16:03 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:16:01 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE4B8@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T7 Thread-Index: AcjPDLGByaUXtwuDSOGnV4CuYLXnrgA0AltwAHNSeKA= References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98133@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 01:16:03.0125 (UTC) FILETIME=[0A85DE50:01C8D1AA] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T7 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK, closing issue 48. PatC -----Original Message----- From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 11:14 AM To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap@frascone.com Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T7 OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 6:36 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T7 > > All, > > The following IESG review comment was received: > > T7 - Section 4.3, pag 49 - what is the max size of this Data field > in the Wireless > specific information. Is it 255 as the length is coded in > 8 bit or something else? > Please detail. > > I am proposing changing the text to: > > > Length: The 8 bit field contains the length of the data > field, with a maximum size of 255. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 18:15:54 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43F1F28C1EC for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:15:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KuxASeSlQSFc for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:15:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79D7228C1D7 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:15:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0777243A502 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:16:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23DEB4400C8 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:16:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B54F3618009 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:16:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 823453618001 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:16:33 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.70 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:16:33 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,669,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="42409481" Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 18:16:33 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5J1GXZb005930; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:16:33 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5J1GX7g028720; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:16:33 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:16:32 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:16:31 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE4B9@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T18 Thread-Index: AcjPMFORyY1/kW15S8S8M8utx3CtEAArIINgAHNN/EA= References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E9813B@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 01:16:32.0899 (UTC) FILETIME=[1C450530:01C8D1AA] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T18 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK, closing issue 59. PatC -----Original Message----- From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 11:15 AM To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap@frascone.com Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T18 OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 6:36 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T18 > > All, > > Here is the IESG Review Comment: > > T18 - Section 4.6.8 - what is the max length of the VLAN Name? As > nothing is said I > assume the max value currently supported but IEEE 802.1Q but it's > better to be > specific > > I agree with the comment on the maximum VLAN name, but since the > message element does not reference an actual VLAN ID, there is no > reason to reference the maximum VLAN number. > > My proposed text: > > > 4.6.8. Add Station > [...] > VLAN Name: An optional variable length UTF-8 encoded string, > with a maximum length of 512 octets, containing the VLAN > Name on which the WTP is to locally bridge user data. > Note this field is only valid with WTPs configured in > Local MAC mode. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 18:18:18 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 803ED3A68B7 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:18:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9A1e81V9+Ic7 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:18:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 734553A682B for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:18:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0249E43A24C for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:19:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85C704400CA for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:18:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7168B361800B for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:18:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C28683618009 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:18:56 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.68.10.87 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:18:56 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,669,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="33069381" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 18:18:56 -0700 Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com (sj-core-3.cisco.com [171.68.223.137]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5J1Iuno011693; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:18:56 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5J1IuRw022444; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:18:56 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:18:56 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:18:55 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE4BE@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review T8 Thread-Index: AcjPDWtLV7rPD99kRF+u8++xEtZCwQA0Y7vwAHLZNSA= References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98134@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 01:18:56.0167 (UTC) FILETIME=[71A9FB70:01C8D1AA] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review T8 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK, closing issue 49. PatC -----Original Message----- From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 11:30 AM To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap@frascone.com Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review T8 OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 6:36 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review T8 > > All, > > The following is the IESG Review comment: > > T8 - Session 4.4.1, pag. 50 - what is the max size of the Message > Element field? > Please detail > > I am proposing changing the text to the following: > > > Message Element Length: The 8 bit Length field indicates the > number of bytes following the CAPWAP Header, with a > maximum size of 65535. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 18:18:47 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1FA13A68B7 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:18:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IY8V3WmqYhj5 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:18:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 141403A682B for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:18:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92CEB43A555 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:19:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00D7D4400CC for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:19:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEA68361800B for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:19:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C84E3618009 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:19:21 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.68.10.86 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com (sj-iport-4.cisco.com [171.68.10.86]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:19:21 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,669,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="16201545" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 18:19:20 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5J1JKCU003173; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:19:20 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5J1JKhF001043; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:19:20 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:19:20 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:19:19 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE4BF@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T13 Thread-Index: AcjPEZPFbd7U4A1MRVu5HnzXgixlQAAzYAHgAHLaOlA= References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98137@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 01:19:20.0582 (UTC) FILETIME=[80376A60:01C8D1AA] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T13 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK, closing issue 54. PatC -----Original Message----- From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 11:31 AM To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap@frascone.com Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T13 OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 6:36 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T13 > > All, > > Here is the IESG Review Comment: > > T13 - Section 4.6.1 - please define the max length of the vendor > specific field > information > > The field is 16 bits, but it seems excessive to allow for the field to > be 65535, so I am setting the maximum to 1024 bytes. > > > Length: Length of vendor specific encoding of AC > information, with > a maximum > size of 1024. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 18:19:19 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71AB63A694F for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:19:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vjvJugYDhD5O for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:19:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B1423A68B7 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:19:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F422843A235 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:20:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EB2A4400C8 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:19:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00675361800E for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:19:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31423361800D for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:19:56 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.72 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:19:56 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,669,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="81406108" Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 18:19:56 -0700 Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com (sj-core-4.cisco.com [171.68.223.138]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5J1JuSJ011201; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:19:56 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5J1JuvK005445; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:19:56 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:19:55 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:19:54 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE4C1@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T6 Thread-Index: AcjPC6sIqcK3O7B1S2illouweQiqbQA05eyQAHLTPuA= References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98132@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 01:19:55.0884 (UTC) FILETIME=[954212C0:01C8D1AA] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T6 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK, closing issue 47. PatC -----Original Message----- From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 11:32 AM To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap@frascone.com Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T6 OK with me and thanks for letting me understand the issue. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 6:36 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T6 > > Here is the IESG Issue: > > T6 - Section 4.3, page 48 - 'This is useful in packets sent from > the WTP to the AC, > when the native wireless frame format is converted to > 802.3 by the WTP.'. Please > explain why (is Radio MAC address useful)? Also, s/802.3/IEEE 802.3 > format/ > > I am proposing the changed second sentence in the following text to > address this issue: > > > Radio MAC Address: This optional field contains the MAC address of > the radio receiving the packet. Because the native wireless > frame format to IEEE 802.3 format causes the MAC address of the > WTP's radio to be lost, this field allows the address to be > communicated to the AC. This field is only present if the > 'M' bit is set. The HLEN field assumes 4 byte alignment, and > this field MUST be padded with zeroes (0x00) if it is not 4 byte > aligned. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 18:19:55 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BC503A69D1 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:19:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YZgSvby2DPlP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:19:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 456613A694F for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:19:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CABC943A54F for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:20:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 597964400C8 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:20:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FE80361800E for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:20:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66DFF361800B for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:20:32 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.68.10.87 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:20:32 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,669,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="33070239" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 18:20:32 -0700 Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com (sj-core-4.cisco.com [171.68.223.138]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5J1KWM4014436; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:20:32 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5J1KRrX005615; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:20:32 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:20:27 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:20:26 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE4C2@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T20 Thread-Index: AcjPMgglsZvRXFb9Sfa7Aajmt+ENsQArRy9QAHLdPBA= References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E9813C@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 01:20:27.0216 (UTC) FILETIME=[A7EEF500:01C8D1AA] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T20 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK, closing issue 61. PatC -----Original Message----- From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 11:31 AM To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap@frascone.com Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T20 OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 6:36 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T20 > > All, > > Here is the IESG Review Comment: > > T20 - Section 4.6.16, 4.6.17, 4.6.33, 4.6.36, 4.6.42, > 4.6.43 - why do the encoded > values start from 1 and not from 0? > > There is actually no reason why the values did not start at zero. I > will make the changes to renumber the values to start at zero (0). The > only one I disagree with is 4.6.43, because this is a bit field, but I > noticed that the text did not explicitely call for a bit field, so I > also made the necessary change. > > > 4.6.16. Data Transfer Data > [...] > Data Type: An 8-bit value the type of information being > sent. The > following values are supported: > > 0 - WTP Crash Data > > 1 - WTP Memory Dump > > 4.6.17. Data Transfer Mode > [...] > Data Type: An 8-bit value the type of information being > requested. > The following values are supported: > > 0 - WTP Crash Data > > 1 - WTP Memory Dump > > 4.6.33. Radio Administrative State > [...] > Admin State: An 8-bit value representing the administrative state > of the radio. The default value for the Admin State field is > listed in Section 4.8.1. The following values are supported: > > 0 - Enabled > > 1 - Disabled > > 4.6.36. Returned Message Element > [...] > Reason: The reason why the configuration in the offending message > element could not be applied by the WTP. > > 0 - Unknown Message Element > > 1 - Unsupported Message Element > > 2 - Unknown Message Element Value > > 3 - Unsupported Message Element Value > > 4.6.42. WTP Fallback > [...] > > Mode: The 8-bit value indicates the status of automatic CAPWAP > fallback on the WTP. When enabled, if the WTP detects that its > primary AC is available, and that the WTP is not connected to > the > primary AC, the WTP SHOULD automatically disconnect from its > current AC and reconnect to its primary AC. If disabled, the > WTP > will only reconnect to its primary AC through manual > intervention > (e.g., through the Reset Request message). The default value > for > this field is specified in Section 4.8.10. The following values > are supported: > > 0 - Enabled > > 1 - Disabled > > Frame Tunnel Mode: The Frame Tunnel mode specifies the tunneling > modes for station data that are supported by the WTP. > The following > values are supported for this bit field: > > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 18:20:56 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD27D3A68B7 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:20:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id blOzcNB8d985 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:20:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F2353A694F for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:20:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 973E443A247 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:21:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A29FF4400C8 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:21:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88197361800E for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:21:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BF28361800D for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:21:31 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.117 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:21:31 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,669,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="115333598" Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 18:21:31 -0700 Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com (sj-core-3.cisco.com [171.68.223.137]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5J1LVsg014213; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:21:31 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5J1LViA023282; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:21:31 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:21:30 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:21:29 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE4C3@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T17 Thread-Index: AcjPLzVAlC/5rErySsWdtc4xv7fXjwAsCo/QAHLYYFA= References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E9813A@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 01:21:30.0761 (UTC) FILETIME=[CDCF2790:01C8D1AA] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T17 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK, closing issue 58. PatC -----Original Message----- From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 11:33 AM To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap@frascone.com Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T17 OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 6:36 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T17 > > All, > > Here is the IESG Review Comment: > > T17 - Section 4.6.7, 4.6.9 - what is the max length of the MAC > address field? (i.e. > how many addresses at most on the ACL MAC list?) > > I have addressed this issue by explicitely stating that only the > formats, and lengths, of the two known EUI specifications. I have also > addressed many other references to MAC Address lengths throughout the > spec. > > > 4.6.7. Add MAC ACL Entry > [...] > > Length: The length of the MAC Address field. The > following formats, and lengths, are supported > [EUI-48] and [EUI-64]. > > 4.6.8. Add Station > [...] > > Length: The length of the MAC Address field. The > following formats, and lengths, are supported > [EUI-48] and [EUI-64]. > > 4.6.9. Add Static MAC ACL Entry > [...] > > Length: The length of the MAC Address field. The > following formats, and lengths, are supported > [EUI-48] and [EUI-64]. > > 4.6.18. Decryption Error Report > [...] > > Length: The length of the MAC Address field. The > following formats, and lengths, are supported > [EUI-48] and [EUI-64]. > > 4.6.20. Delete MAC ACL Entry > [...] > > Length: The length of the MAC Address field. The > following formats, and lengths, are supported > [EUI-48] and [EUI-64]. > > 4.6.20. Delete MAC ACL Entry > [...] > > Length: The length of the MAC Address field. The > following formats, and lengths, are supported > [EUI-48] and [EUI-64]. > > 4.6.24. Duplicate IPv4 Address > [...] > > Length: The length of the MAC Address field. The > following formats, and lengths, are supported > [EUI-48] and [EUI-64]. > > 4.6.25. Duplicate IPv6 Address > [...] > > Length: The length of the MAC Address field. The > following formats, and lengths, are supported > [EUI-48] and [EUI-64]. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 18:21:18 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEA753A69D1 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:21:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8KxgKPMev+1w for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:21:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D24493A694F for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:21:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 667A043A73A for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:22:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4E844400CE for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:21:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3654361800D for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:21:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FAF0361800B for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:21:55 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.68.10.86 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com (sj-iport-4.cisco.com [171.68.10.86]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:21:55 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,669,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="16202414" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 18:21:55 -0700 Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com (sj-core-4.cisco.com [171.68.223.138]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5J1Ls1s016970; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:21:54 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5J1LsK8006055; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:21:54 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:21:54 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:21:53 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE4C5@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review T27 Thread-Index: AcjPNjfaDwkd/J7aQ3ipk/ZS9z6yFwAs6JYAAHA/JkA= References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E9812C@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 01:21:54.0714 (UTC) FILETIME=[DC1617A0:01C8D1AA] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review T27 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK, closing issue 68. PatC -----Original Message----- From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 1:40 PM To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap@frascone.com Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review T27 OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 6:36 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review T27 > > All, > > Here is the IESG Review Comment: > > T27 - Section 4.6.36 - what is the max length of the Message > Element field? > > I guess we have to assume that a message element could be 65535, so I > have made the necessary changes: > > > 4.6.36. Returned Message Element > [...] > > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Reason | Length | Message Element... > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > Length: The length of the Message Element field, which MUST > NOT exceed 65535 octets. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 18:21:53 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFF313A694F for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:21:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IuzZW3pzNF43 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:21:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 690793A682B for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:21:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F04D243A6F5 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:22:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FA7B4400CE for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:22:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29E9D3618013 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:22:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E4DB361800E for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:22:23 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.72 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:22:23 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,669,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="81406743" Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 18:22:23 -0700 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5J1MNuP019621; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:22:23 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5J1MNiX011343; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:22:23 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:22:23 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:22:22 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE4C6@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T23 Thread-Index: AcjPM3OoCC/IloCCSCmmumv3wIc6LAAtlKoAAHBGWgA= References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98128@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 01:22:23.0099 (UTC) FILETIME=[ED014CB0:01C8D1AA] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T23 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK, closing issue 64. PatC -----Original Message----- From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 1:40 PM To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap@frascone.com Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T23 OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 6:36 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T23 > > All, > > Here is the IESG Review Comment: > > T23 - Section 4.6.26 - what is the unit for the Idle timeout > > This was already specified in section 4.8.5, but I will include it in > this section as well. > > > 4.6.26. Idle Timeout > [...] > Timeout: The current idle timeout, in seconds, to be enforced > by the WTP. The default value for this message element is > specified in Section 4.8.5. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 18:22:18 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3BD53A68B7 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:22:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gZnKB411Cakw for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:22:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D6A83A682B for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:22:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2078443A783 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:23:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF66F4400CE for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:22:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7C3C361800E for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:22:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 655753618001 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:22:57 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.117 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:22:57 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,669,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="115334018" Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 18:22:57 -0700 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5J1Mv85020242; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:22:57 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5J1Mvfk011635; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:22:57 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:22:56 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:22:56 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE4C7@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T21 Thread-Index: AcjPMpmu/oBw+fpJRTK2LvXKpm8MeABQKuTQAE3sXgA= References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E9813D@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 01:22:56.0895 (UTC) FILETIME=[012628F0:01C8D1AB] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T21 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK, closing issue 62. PatC -----Original Message----- From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 5:12 AM To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap@frascone.com Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T21 OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 6:36 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T21 > > All, > > Here is the IESG Review Comment: > > T21 - Section 4.6.18, 4.6.20 - what is the max number of entries in > the array (and > thus the max length of the respective MAC Address fields)? > > I have made the necessary changes, based on choosing a maximum number > of 1024. > > > 4.6.18. Decryption Error Report > [...] > Num of Entries: The number of instances of the Type/MAC Addresses > fields in the array. This field MUST NOT exceed the value of > 1024. > > 4.6.20. Delete MAC ACL Entry > [...] > Num of Entries: The number of instances of the Type/MAC Addresses > fields in the array. This field MUST NOT exceed the value of > 1024. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 18:23:06 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 712793A68B7 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:23:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TQXBdsmPfmQk for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:23:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 768E43A682B for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:23:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03116175198C for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:23:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CE404400CE for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:23:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0228C361800F for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:23:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D9533618001 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:23:44 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.117 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:23:44 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,669,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="115334315" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 18:23:43 -0700 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5J1Nhsr019489; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:23:43 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5J1Nhqk012076; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:23:43 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:23:43 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:23:42 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE4C8@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T25 Thread-Index: AcjPNTZdrbg7Q8ReTYadhcoWKxqufwBPvlNAAE26XgA= References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E9812A@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 01:23:43.0649 (UTC) FILETIME=[1D044110:01C8D1AB] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T25 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK, closing issue 66. PatC -----Original Message----- From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 5:18 AM To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap@frascone.com Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T25 Yes, sorry for the confusion. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 6:36 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T25 > > All, > > Here is the IESG Review Comment: > > T25 - Section 4.6.29 - what is the max length of the Value field? > > I suspect the commentor really meant 4.6.28, which was addressed by > comment T24. This is therefore a duplicate entry, and will be marked > as invalid. > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 18:23:52 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E2FC3A68B7 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:23:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MesPBkfaR+w0 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:23:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60C043A682B for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:23:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6A65175198D for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:24:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B5144400CE for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:24:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74E7C361800D for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:24:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 043DB3618001 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:24:30 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.68.10.87 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:24:29 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,669,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="33071758" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 18:24:29 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5J1OTXi010904; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:24:29 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5J1OT7u005207; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:24:29 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:24:29 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:24:28 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE4C9@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T14 Thread-Index: AcjPLTVEQAnGzPu/Q1yv6xQingNpWQBRxFHAAE2yp/A= References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98139@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 01:24:29.0643 (UTC) FILETIME=[386E61B0:01C8D1AB] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T14 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK, closing issue 55. PatC -----Original Message----- From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 5:19 AM To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap@frascone.com Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T14 OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 6:36 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T14 > > All, > > Here is the IESG Review Comment: > > T15 - Section 4.6.4, 4,6,5 - what is the max size of the AC names? > > I am proposing the following resolution, and figured that the proposed > maximum size is 512 bytes for an AC name: > > > 4.6.4. AC Name > [...] > > AC Name: A variable length UTF-8 encoded string containing the AC > name, whose maximum size MUST NOT exceed 512 bytes. > > 4.6.5. AC Name with Index > [...] > > AC Name: A variable length UTF-8 encoded string containing the AC > name, whose maximum size MUST NOT exceed 512 bytes. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 18:24:24 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD3323A694F for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:24:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j9bG2je+HytJ for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:24:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A36A3A68B7 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:24:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E179C43A789 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:25:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3563C4400CF for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:25:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D450E3618001 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:25:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57999361800E for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:25:00 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.68.10.87 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:25:00 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,669,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="33071861" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 18:25:00 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5J1P0MY011457; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:25:00 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5J1P0ul005449; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:25:00 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:24:59 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:24:59 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE4CA@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T11 Thread-Index: AcjPEG4+TAjLFrCtQgOKnj1JL/mH2ABY+10AAE244sA= References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98136@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 01:24:59.0745 (UTC) FILETIME=[4A5F9510:01C8D1AB] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T11 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK, closing issue 52. PatC -----Original Message----- From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 5:19 AM To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap@frascone.com Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T11 OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 6:36 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T11 > > All, > > The following is the IESG Comment Review: > > T11 - Section 4.6 - Please define the CAPWAP Message elements Type > Values that are > currently TBD > > > I have made the necessary changes, but given that it touches a > significant amount of text, I will only include the table here that > show the new number assignment: > > > AC Descriptor 1 > AC IPv4 List 2 > AC IPv6 List 3 > AC Name 4 > AC Name with Index 5 > AC Timestamp 6 > Add MAC ACL Entry 7 > Add Station 8 > Add Static MAC ACL Entry 9 > CAPWAP Control IPV4 Address 10 > CAPWAP Control IPV6 Address 11 > CAPWAP Local IPV4 Address 12 > CAPWAP Local IPV6 Address 13 > CAPWAP Timers 14 > CAPWAP Transport Protocol 15 > Data Transfer Data 16 > Data Transfer Mode 17 > Decryption Error Report 18 > Decryption Error Report Period 19 > Delete MAC ACL Entry 20 > Delete Station 21 > Delete Static MAC ACL Entry 22 > Discovery Type 23 > Duplicate IPv4 Address 24 > Duplicate IPv6 Address 25 > Idle Timeout 26 > Image Data 27 > Image Identifier 28 > Image Info 29 > Initiate Download 30 > Location Data 31 > Maximum Message Length 32 > Radio Administrative State 33 > Radio Operational State 34 > Result Code 35 > Returned Message Element 36 > Session ID 37 > Statistics Timer 38 > Vendor Specific Payload 39 > WTP Board Data 40 > WTP Descriptor 41 > WTP Fallback 42 > WTP Frame Tunnel Mode 43 > WTP IPv4 IP Address 44 > WTP IPv6 IP Address 45 > WTP MAC Type 46 > WTP Name 47 > WTP Operational Statistics 48 > WTP Radio Statistics 49 > WTP Reboot Statistics 50 > WTP Static IP Address Information 51 > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 18:25:03 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10DF328C1D7 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:25:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u5QrsdjNIOGt for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:24:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74B003A68B7 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:24:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AB7043A691 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:25:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDAD54400CE for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:25:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B40D23618010 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:25:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D99383618001 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:25:22 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.71 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:25:22 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,669,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="58347902" Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 18:25:22 -0700 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5J1PMSQ019662; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:25:22 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5J1PMDk013190; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:25:22 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:25:22 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:25:21 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE4CB@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] IESG Review Comment T24 Thread-Index: AcjPNNEq55gvrj7JSaOvrsKd320B3QBP50ygAE23qTA= References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98129@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 01:25:22.0167 (UTC) FILETIME=[57BCE870:01C8D1AB] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Capwap] IESG Review Comment T24 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK, closing issue 65. PatC -----Original Message----- From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 5:20 AM To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap@frascone.com Subject: RE: [Capwap] IESG Review Comment T24 OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 6:36 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] IESG Review Comment T24 > > All, > > Here is the IESG Review Comment: > > T24 - Sections 4.6.27, 4.6.28 - should not these two messages > include length of the > Value fields? > > Originally, this was not included, because it could be inferred. > However, I can imagine a software architecture where the packet size > is not known when the message elements are parsed. So I have added > them: > > > 4.6.27. Image Data > [...] > > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Data Type | Data Length | Data .... > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > [...] > > Data: Length of data field, with a maximum size of 1024. > > Data: The Image Data field contains up to 1024 > characters. If the > block being sent is the last one, the Opcode is set to 2. The > AC > MAY opt to abort the data transfer by setting the Opcode to 5. > When the Opcode is 5, the Value field has a zero length. > > 4.6.28. Image Identifier > [...] > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Vendor Identifier | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Value Length | Data... > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > [...] > > Data: Length of data field, with a maximum size of 65535. > > Data: A variable length UTF-8 encoded string containing the > firmware > identifier to be run on the WTP. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 18:25:19 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30E9828C1D7 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:25:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U5ne3OvRJAVK for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:25:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4753528C1C7 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:25:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF22643A7B2 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:26:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B16844400CE for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:25:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A4263618011 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:25:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8E42361800F for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:25:50 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.117 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:25:50 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,669,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="115334839" Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 18:25:50 -0700 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5J1PoY1023383; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:25:50 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5J1PoEJ007662; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:25:50 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:25:50 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:25:49 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE4CC@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T10 Thread-Index: AcjPD0aR/vM05wFrQNubtiXz/xrb3QBZUPygAE20H4A= References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98135@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 01:25:50.0275 (UTC) FILETIME=[687DD930:01C8D1AB] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T10 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK, closing issue 51. PatC -----Original Message----- From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 5:21 AM To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap@frascone.com Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T10 OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 6:36 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T10 > > All, > > The following is the IESG Review Comment: > > T10 - Section 4.5.1.1 - it is not explicitly said whether the > CAPWAP control > messages in the table at page 54 apply for any wireless technology. > If true, why is > only a value for IEEE 802.11 mentioned in this specification? In my > opinion there > is a need to clarify and to take out the IEEE 802.11 value, which > should be > mentioned in the technology binding document. > > There was actually no reason why the IEEE 802.11 IANA Enterprise > Number was mentioned in this section, so I have removed it, and > cleaned up the text a little bit. I've checked the CAPWAP IEEE 802.11 > binding spec, and it already includes its IANA Enterprise Number, so > no changes are required to that spec. I am therefore proposing the > following text: > > > 4.5.1.1. Message Type > > The Message Type field identifies the function of the CAPWAP > control > message. To provide extensibility, the Message Type field is > comprised > of an IANA Enterprise Number [RFC3232] and an enterprise specific > message type number. The first three octets contain the IANA > Enterprise > Number in network byte order, with zero used for CAPWAP base > protocol > (this specification) defined message types. The last octet is the > enterprise specific message type number, which has a range from 0 > to 255. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 18:25:40 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C3CA28C1D7 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:25:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N2pZ-Dn8IdTC for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:25:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2BA628C1C7 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:25:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38BE01C40FBB for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:26:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8AAF4400CF for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:26:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9199D3618010 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:26:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8D74361800E for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:26:12 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.72 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:26:12 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,669,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="81407682" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 18:26:12 -0700 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5J1QC1V022233; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:26:12 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5J1QCXx013671; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:26:12 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:26:12 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:26:11 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE4CD@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T2 Thread-Index: AcjPCKNvAI06dDyLRae0zdkSV6CbCABbANCgAE2yuSA= References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E9812F@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 01:26:12.0176 (UTC) FILETIME=[758BAD00:01C8D1AB] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T2 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK, closing issue 43. PatC -----Original Message----- From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 5:22 AM To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap@frascone.com Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T2 Yes, this makes the goal more clear, OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 6:36 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T2 > > All, > > The issue provided by the IESG states: > T2 - Section 1.1 - Layer 2 and radio technology independence and > extensibility > seem to me to be major goals of CAPWAP to the same extent as the > three goals > already mentioned. > > I believe the text already describes this in the third goal: > > 3. To provide a generic encapsulation and transport mechanism, > enabling the CAPWAP protocol to be applied to many access point > types in the future, via a specific wireless binding. > > However, given the reviewer did not catch on to this, perhaps it isn't > clear enough, so I am proposing the following text: > > 3. To provide an extensible protocol that is not bound to > a specific wireless technology. Extensibility is provided > via a generic encapsulation and transport mechanism, > enabling the CAPWAP protocol to be applied to many access > point types in the future, via a specific wireless binding. > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 18:26:03 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F27F3A68B7 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:26:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wGlgX1wYXaZ8 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:26:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64E603A682B for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:26:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9FFF43A7C3 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:26:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB3674400CF for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:26:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9472D361800E for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:26:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18E8D3618011 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:26:37 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.117 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:26:37 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,669,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="115335158" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 18:26:36 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5J1Qa2f022719; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:26:36 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5J1QaY1006410; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:26:36 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:26:36 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:26:36 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE4CE@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T4 Thread-Index: AcjPCZaOgc4e9HxwT8O9DdpIk/hqgwBay4iwAE2vDIA= References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98130@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 01:26:36.0540 (UTC) FILETIME=[841153C0:01C8D1AB] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T4 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK, closing issue 45. PatC -----Original Message----- From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 5:22 AM To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap@frascone.com Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T4 OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 6:36 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T4 > > The following is the issue provided by the IESG: > > T4 - Section 2.3.1, page 25, Configure to Reset - it is not clear > what 'reset the > connection' means, this state needs clarification, for example what > is the > difference / relationship to DTLS teardown > > Although the actual Reset command provides much more detail, I am > proposing adding the last sentence to the 'Configure to Reset' state > transition description: > > Configure to Reset (h): This state transition is used to reset the > connection either due to an error during the configuration > phase, > or when the WTP determines it needs to reset in order for the > new > configuration to take effect. The CAPWAP Reset command is used > to > indicate to the peer that it will initiate a DTLS teardown. > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 18:27:13 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 586143A683E for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:27:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JoArd6Hl2XDO for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:27:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E29A33A68B7 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:26:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7966743A7BB for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:27:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB4604400CF for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:27:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9232A3618019 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:27:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6D0E3618012 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:27:00 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.117 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:27:00 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,669,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="115335302" Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 18:27:00 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5J1R0sA024686; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:27:00 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5J1R0EG006613; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:27:00 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:26:59 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:26:59 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE4CF@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review T26 Thread-Index: AcjPNY/yxqR6+dAZR4CWlpiqfFhCXQBP0KPgAE2s1dA= References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E9812B@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 01:26:59.0972 (UTC) FILETIME=[9208C440:01C8D1AB] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review T26 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK, closing issue 67. PatC -----Original Message----- From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 5:23 AM To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap@frascone.com Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review T26 OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 6:36 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review T26 > > All, > > Here is the IESG Review Comment: > > T26 - Section 4.6.31 - what is the max length of the location > field? > > I have picked a number in the proposed text below: > > > 4.6.31. Location Data > [...] > Location: A non-zero terminated UTF-8 encoded string > containing the > WTP location, whose maximum size MUST NOT exceed 1024. > > > PatC > > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 18:27:58 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4038B3A682B for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:27:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DK5BHuPLWZY4 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:27:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68DE83A681D for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:27:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFF3143A7D8 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:28:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 142BA4400D0 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:28:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 769523618012 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:28:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F48B3618010 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:28:29 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.117 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:28:29 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,669,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="115335687" Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 18:28:28 -0700 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5J1SS6Y022774; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:28:28 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5J1SSUZ009216; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:28:28 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:28:28 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:28:27 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE4D1@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E7 Thread-Index: AcjQoZ8LnSUEtyETRYi3tIn9RSBdKQAkZ29QAB4dgvA= References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE083@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 01:28:28.0621 (UTC) FILETIME=[C6DF87D0:01C8D1AB] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E7 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK, closing issue 88. PatC -----Original Message----- From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 4:06 AM To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap@frascone.com Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E7 OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 8:22 AM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E7 > > All, > > The follwing is the IESG review comment: > > E7. Section 2.3, page 18, definition of threads - repetition > 'figure Figure 3' > (three occurrences) > > I have removed the duplicate words. > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 18:28:19 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A5B23A682B for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:28:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IZ2ciY6czqCo for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:28:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81F3F3A681D for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:28:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 136DD43A7DC for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:29:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 594594400CF for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:28:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A65E361800F for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:28:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 510E33618014 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:28:53 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.117 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:28:53 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,669,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="115335773" Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 18:28:53 -0700 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5J1SqfO023190; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:28:52 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5J1SqiI009443; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:28:52 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:28:52 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:28:51 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE4D2@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T34 Thread-Index: AcjQn4nRNye/2qMURmaePtpsQ9NQMAAk785QAB4gHSA= References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE081@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 01:28:52.0599 (UTC) FILETIME=[D52A4870:01C8D1AB] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T34 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK, closing issue 75. PatC -----Original Message----- From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 4:06 AM To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap@frascone.com Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T34 OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 8:22 AM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T34 > > All, > > Here is the IESG Review Comment: > > T34 - Section 4.7.2 - there is no unit specified for the > DataChannelKeepAlive timer > > I have specified that the timer is in seconds. > > > 4.7.2. DataChannelKeepAlive > > The DataChannelKeepAlive timer is used by the WTP to determine the > next opportunity when it must transmit the Data Channel KeepAlive, > in seconds. > > Default: 30 seconds > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 18:28:47 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E55973A682B for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:28:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hKRUTrh7IADy for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:28:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5A6B3A681D for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:28:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 608C243A7F0 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:29:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55BF74400CF for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:29:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37D16361800F for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:29:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9DD9361800E for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:29:23 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.117 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:29:23 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,669,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="115335911" Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 18:29:19 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5J1TJbS023648; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:29:19 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5J1TJiA007861; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:29:19 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:29:18 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:29:18 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE4D3@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T31 Thread-Index: AcjQnhdizrCECtY1RdabvYtTMfOuXAAlUoWAAB4d0RA= References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE07E@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 01:29:18.0874 (UTC) FILETIME=[E4D387A0:01C8D1AB] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T31 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK, closing issue 72. PatC -----Original Message----- From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 4:07 AM To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap@frascone.com Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T31 OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 8:21 AM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T31 > > All, > > The following is the IESG Review Comment: > > T31 - Section 4.6.46 - what is the max length of the WTP name > field? > > I have made the following change, and ensured that it is consistent > with the text describing the AC Name field. > > > 4.6.47. WTP Name > [...] > > Length: >0 > > WTP Name: A non-zero terminated UTF-8 encoded string > containing the WTP name, whose maximum size MUST > NOT exceed 512 bytes. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 18:29:08 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B61EA3A682B for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:29:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZZLI+JXLMCpu for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:29:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDC863A681D for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:29:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80E5643A7FC for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:29:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24C844400CF for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:29:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BCFC361800F for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:29:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95D0E361800E for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:29:47 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.71 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:29:47 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,669,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="58348525" Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 18:29:47 -0700 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5J1TlYT027378; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:29:47 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5J1TlQ5010002; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:29:47 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:29:46 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:29:46 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE4D4@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review T35 Thread-Index: AcjQoL5dAM4ywsHVTSKQB2w3wSwXvgAoFCswABq2mOA= References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE082@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 01:29:46.0932 (UTC) FILETIME=[F58CD740:01C8D1AB] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review T35 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK, closing issue 76. PatC -----Original Message----- From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 5:45 AM To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap@frascone.com Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review T35 OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 8:22 AM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review T35 > > All, > > Here is the IESG Review Comment: > > T35 - section 4.7.14 - this variable is not defined > > I have changed the text to the following: > > > 4.7.14. StatisticsTimer > > The StatisticsTimer is used by the WTP to determine the interval > the WTP uses between the WTP Events Requests it transmits to the > AC to communicate its statistics, in seconds. > > Default: 120 seconds > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 18:29:43 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC71A3A682B for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:29:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TA2bQ3CFCIb9 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:29:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABAC33A681D for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:29:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 415A743A7F9 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:30:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54D284400D0 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:30:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A34C3618012 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:30:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8ED4361800F for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:30:20 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.72 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:30:20 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,669,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="81408695" Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 18:30:20 -0700 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5J1UKe3025115; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:30:20 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5J1UKBA016588; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:30:20 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:30:20 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:30:19 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE4D6@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T30 Thread-Index: AcjQnbYNmGyQ/MGzRiKuZ3rFp9tevgAo32YQABqyzhA= References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE07D@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 01:30:20.0123 (UTC) FILETIME=[095562B0:01C8D1AC] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T30 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK, closing issue 71. PatC -----Original Message----- From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 5:46 AM To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap@frascone.com Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T30 OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 8:21 AM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T30 > > All, > > The following is the IESG Comment: > > T30 - Section 4.6.41 - what are the max values of the Value fields? > What is the > semantics of Other Software version? I do not understand what > non-running > (firmware) means > > I have made a change that makes the text format more consistent with > the WTP Board Data message element. The format has not changed, but > the Definition is clearer and consistent. > > > 4.6.41. WTP Descriptor > [...] > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Max Radios | Radios in use | Encryption Capabilities | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Descriptor Vendor Identifier | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Descriptor Type=0 | Descriptor Length | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Descriptor Value... > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Descriptor Vendor Identifier | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Descriptor Type=1 | Descriptor Length | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Descriptor Value... > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Descriptor Vendor Identifier | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Descriptor Type=2 | Descriptor Length | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Descriptor Value... > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Descriptor Vendor Identifier | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Descriptor Type=3 | Descriptor Length | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Descriptor Value... > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > [...] > > Descriptor: The WTP Descriptor message element contains > multiple Descriptor sub-elements, some of which are mandatory > and some are optional. The Descriptor sub-element contain a > Descriptor Type, Descriptor Length and Descriptor Value field. > > Descriptor Vendor Identifier: A 32-bit value containing the > IANA assigned "SMI Network Management Private Enterprise > Codes". > > Descriptor Type: The Descriptor Type field identifies the > data being encoded. The CAPWAP protocol defines the > following values, and each of these types identify > whether their presence is mandatory or optional: > > 0 - Hardware Version: The WTP hardware version number > MUST be present. > > 1 - Active Software Version: The WTP running software > version number MUST be present. > > 2 - Boot Version: The WTP boot loader version number > MUST be present. > > 3 - Other Software Version: The WTP non-running > software (firmware) version number MAY be present. > This type is used to communicate alternate software > versions that are available on the WTP's non- > volatile storage. > > Descriptor Length: Length of vendor specific encoding of > Descriptor Data field, whose length MUST NOT exceed > 1024 octets. > > Descriptor Data: Vendor specific data of WTP > information encoded > in the UTF-8 format. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 18:30:07 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15FB13A682B for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:30:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WWh9GEAxUoTW for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:30:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC2CD3A681D for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:30:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 712DF43A814 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:30:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66EFE4400D0 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:30:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E62C3618010 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:30:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6B1D361800F for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:30:44 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.68.10.87 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:30:44 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,669,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="33073057" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 18:30:44 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5J1UiC9017807; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:30:44 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5J1UiL6008906; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:30:44 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:30:44 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:30:43 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE4D8@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T29 Thread-Index: AcjQlNKbZYEGS5x4RY675JEcXdymyAABwbVQAClbMoAAGrHdEA== References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFDCC2@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE07C@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 01:30:44.0024 (UTC) FILETIME=[17946380:01C8D1AC] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T29 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK, closing issue 70. PatC -----Original Message----- From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 5:46 AM To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap@frascone.com Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T29 OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 8:21 AM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T29 > > My apologies, but I sent this before it was completely ready. > The Board Data Length field did not specify a maximum length, so I > have made the change here: > > > > Board Data Length: The length of the data in the Board Data > Value field, whose length MUST NOT exceed 1024 octets. > > > PatC > > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) > Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 9:12 AM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T29 > > All, > > The IESG Review Comment is: > > T29 - Section 4.6.40 - what is the max length of the Optional > additional vendor > specific WTP board data TLVs? What kind of information is expected > to be carried > there? The field is not described > > I admit that the message element definition was a tad vague, so I am > proposing the following text: > > > 4.6.40. WTP Board Data > > The WTP Board Data message element is sent by the WTP to the AC and > contains information about the hardware present. > > > > > Calhoun, Editor, et al. Expires November 2, 2008 > [Page 83] > > > Internet-Draft CAPWAP Protocol Specification > May 2008 > > > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Vendor Identifier | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Board Data Type=0 | Board Data Length | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Board Data Value... > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Board Data Type=1 | Board Data Length | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Board Data Value... > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Optional additional vendor specific WTP board data TLVs..... > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > > Type: 40 for WTP Board Data > > Length: >=14 > > Vendor Identifier: A 32-bit value containing the IANA > assigned "SMI > Network Management Private Enterprise Codes" > > Board Data: The WTP Board Data message element contains multiple > Board Data sub-elements, some of which are mandatory and some > are > optional. The Board Data sub-element contain a Board Data Type, > Board Data Length and Board Data Value field. > > Board Data Type: The Board Data Type field identifies the data > being encoded. The CAPWAP protocol defines the following > values, and each of these types identify whether their > presence > is mandatory or optional: > > 0 - WTP Model Number: The WTP Model Number MUST be included > in the WTP Board Data message element. > > 1 - WTP Serial Number: The WTP Serial Number MUST > be included > in the WTP Board Data message element. > > 2 - Board ID: A hardware identifier, which MAY be > included in > the WTP Board Data message element. > > 3 - Board Revision A revision number of the board, > which MAY > be included in the WTP Board Data message element. > > 4 - Base MAC Address The WTP's Base MAC Address, > which MAY be > assigned to the primary Ethernet interface. > > Board Data Length: The length of the data in the Board Data > Value field. > > Board Data Value: The data associated with the Board Data Type > field for this Board Data sub-element. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 18:30:44 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97CB53A683E for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:30:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9w7W1zHiK6pn for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:30:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 981323A681D for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:30:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E08A43A81E for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:31:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E3814400D0 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:31:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9450361800F for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:31:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F1423618001 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:31:22 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.72 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:31:22 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,669,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="81408896" Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 18:31:21 -0700 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5J1VL9j026168; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:31:21 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5J1VLq5011365; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:31:21 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:31:21 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:31:20 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE4D9@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E2 Thread-Index: AcjRQp62pChK8mmsRBe/zh+koYDKfwAAHRCQABpDZ5A= References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE0B7@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 01:31:21.0126 (UTC) FILETIME=[2DB1B460:01C8D1AC] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E2 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK, closing issue 83. PatC -----Original Message----- From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 5:59 AM To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap@frascone.com Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E2 OK with me, pending on the respective changes being having been made correctly. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 3:56 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E2 > > All, > > The IESG Comment is as follows: > > E2 - A number of editorial problems have been detected when running > idnits. Please fix them: > > ------------------ > > Checking nits according to > http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt: > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- > ---- > > == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming > Proposed > Standard > > > Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html: > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- > ---- > > No issues found here. > > Miscellaneous warnings: > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- > ---- > > == Using lowercase 'not' together with uppercase 'MUST' is not an > accepted > usage according to RFC 2119. Please use 'MUST NOT' (if that is > what you > mean). > > Found 'MUST not' in this paragraph: > > Unless otherwise specified, a control message that lists a set of > supported (or expected) message elements MUST not expect the > message > elements to be in any specific order. The sender MAY include the > message > elements in any order. Unless otherwise noted, one message > element of > each type is present in a given control message. > > > Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- > ---- > > (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative > references > to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) > > == Missing Reference: 'ChangeCipherSpec' is mentioned on line 1456, > but not > defined > '[ChangeCipherSpec]...' > > == Unused Reference: 'RFC2132' is defined on line 6048, but no > explicit > reference was found in the text > '[RFC2132] Alexander, S. and R. Droms, "DHCP Options and BOOTP > Vendo...' > > ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3280 (Obsoleted by RFC 5280) > > ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2434 (Obsoleted by RFC 5226) > > ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1883 (Obsoleted by RFC 2460) > > -- Unexpected draft version: The latest known version of > draft-calhoun-dhc-capwap-ac-option is -00, but you're referring > to -02. > > -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref. > 'I-D.calhoun-dhc-capwap-ac-option' (No intended status found in > state > file of draft-calhoun-dhc-capwap-ac-option) > > == Outdated reference: draft-housley-aaa-key-mgmt has been published > as RFC > 4962 > ---------------------------- > > I have made the necessary changes to address all of the issues. > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 18:31:09 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97A883A683E for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:31:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qiibsbpxenEv for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:31:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 807F23A682B for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:31:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1693C43A805 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:31:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF1604400D0 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:31:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B35DB361800F for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:31:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E417361800E for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:31:47 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.117 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:31:47 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,669,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="115336784" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 18:31:47 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5J1VlSj028362; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:31:47 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5J1VlqO009471; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:31:47 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:31:46 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:31:46 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE4DA@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E3 Thread-Index: AcjRQdrNzRWlRM2XRaWuNFblilMxPwAAU3vAABpCcaA= References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE0B4@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 01:31:46.0636 (UTC) FILETIME=[3CE638C0:01C8D1AC] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E3 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK, closing issue 84. PatC -----Original Message----- From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 6:00 AM To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap@frascone.com Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E3 OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 3:50 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E3 > > All, > > The IESG Review Comment is: > > E3. Section 1.3 and Informative References > > The reference for LWAPP is > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-04.txt. > Please define an Informative Reference and include a proper [LWAPP] > reference in > the text > > The reference for SLAPP is > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-narasimhan-ietf-slap > p-01.txt. > Please define an Informative Reference and include a proper [SLAPP] > reference in > the text > > I have made the necessary changes, as shown below: > > > 1.3. Contributing Authors > [...] > The CAPWAP Working Group selected the Lightweight Access Point > Protocol (LWAPP) [I-D.ohara-capwap-lwapp] to be used as the basis > of > the CAPWAP protocol specification. The following people are > authors > of the LWAPP document: > [...] > The concept of using DTLS to secure the CAPWAP protocol was part of > the Secure Light Access Point Protocol (SLAPP) proposal > [I-D.narasimhan-ietf-slapp]. The following people are authors of > the > SLAPP proposal: > > 17.2. Informational References > [...] > [I-D.ohara-capwap-lwapp] > Calhoun, P., "Light Weight Access Point Protocol", > draft-ohara-capwap-lwapp-04 (work in progress), > March 2007. > > [I-D.narasimhan-ietf-slapp] > Narasimhan, P., "SLAPP : Secure Light Access Point > Protocol", draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-01 (work in > progress), March 2006. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 18:32:22 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7CAF3A683E for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:32:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Xwlvwfa1oEED for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:32:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3B3E3A682B for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:32:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7ADB843A7FD for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:33:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D76874400CE for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:33:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBA9834AC1EA for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:33:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 364513618012 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:33:01 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.71 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:33:01 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,669,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="58349014" Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 18:33:01 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5J1X1Eg030955; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:33:01 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5J1X1TV010023; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:33:01 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:33:00 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:33:00 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE4DB@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E9 Thread-Index: AcjQolAeUBagcW4+RN2O4QLojD3MZQAoUc9AABowg+A= References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE07B@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 01:33:00.0822 (UTC) FILETIME=[691E1B60:01C8D1AC] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E9 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK, made the change and closing issue 90. PatC -----Original Message----- From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 6:03 AM To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap@frascone.com Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E9 OK with me, I would even add a THAT between 'determines' and 'the software'. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 8:21 AM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E9 > > All, > > Here is the IESG Review Comment: > > E9. Section 2.3, page 24 - the following phrase does not compile > well: > 'The WTP enters the Image Data state when it receives a successful > Join Response > message and determines and the included Image Identifier message > element is not the > same as its currently running image.' > > I agree. I am proposing changing the text to the following: > > > The WTP enters the Image Data state when it receives a > successful Join Response message and determines the > software version in the Image Identifier message element > is not the same as its currently running image. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 18:32:58 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B04863A683E for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:32:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c7FepQb32US7 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:32:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C997A3A682B for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:32:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6108143A782 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:33:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DBBB4400CE for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:33:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54A8E3618012 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:33:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8F31361800F for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:33:36 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.117 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:33:36 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,669,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="115337362" Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 18:33:36 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5J1XaBF031638; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:33:36 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5J1XadE010279; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:33:36 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:33:36 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:33:35 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE4DC@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E6 Thread-Index: AcjRQ8th3xSjqfQ7QBevNs7173MTBwAAEL+AABoZUpA= References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE0B9@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 01:33:36.0040 (UTC) FILETIME=[7E1BF280:01C8D1AC] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E6 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK, closing issue 87. PatC -----Original Message----- From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 6:06 AM To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap@frascone.com Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E6 OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 4:04 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E6 > > All, > > The IESG Comment is: > > E6. Please expand DTLS, PSK, EPCGlobal at first occurrence in the > text. > > I have made the changes for both DTLS and PSK. However, EPCGlobal is > much more problematic because it isn't an acronym, it is the name of > an organization that deals with Electronic Product Code, so I have > created a reference to the website for folks to get more info: > > > 4.3. CAPWAP Header > [...] > 2 - EPCGlobal [EPCGlobal] > > 17.2. Informational References > [...] > [EPCGlobal] > "See http://www.epcglobalinc.org/home". > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 18:33:24 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDE6F3A687F for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:33:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e94EpfQY0dVn for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:33:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B97A23A682B for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:33:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E65343A82E for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:34:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A75E4400CE for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:34:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 321F8361800E for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:34:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 753C0361800F for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:34:00 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.71 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:34:00 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,669,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="58349149" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 18:34:00 -0700 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5J1Y0xA030485; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:34:00 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5J1Y0MY018670; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:34:00 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:33:59 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:33:59 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE4DD@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E10 Thread-Index: AcjRRBd2g49mI8CuS/aycPVoJnp94AAAaJwgABmx41A= References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE0BA@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 01:33:59.0867 (UTC) FILETIME=[8C4FA8B0:01C8D1AC] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E10 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK, closing issue 91. PatC -----Original Message----- From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 6:18 AM To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap@frascone.com Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E10 OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 4:06 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment E10 > > All, > > The IESG Review Comment is: > > E10. Section 2.4.4.3, page 38 - s/a device must have the > id-kp-capwapWTP or id-kp- > anyExtendedKeyUsage keyPurposeID to act as a WTP/a device MUST have > the id-kp- > capwapWTP or id-kp-anyExtendedKeyUsage keyPurposeID to act as a WTP > > I have made the necessary capitalization change of must to MUST. > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 18:33:49 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7A323A683E for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:33:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wGjDhtVMsRPd for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:33:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF0723A682B for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:33:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7771043A7CA for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:34:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F9514400CE for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:34:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4B453628003 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:34:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 333963628001 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:34:27 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.117 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:34:27 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,669,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="115337631" Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 18:34:27 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5J1YRtr029264; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:34:27 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5J1YQAs010812; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:34:26 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:34:26 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:34:24 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE4DE@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Comment T38 Thread-Index: AcjRSxQuGje6hvOnRd6z9Sl33TRvLgAAK25QABgzIYA= References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE0CE@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 01:34:26.0163 (UTC) FILETIME=[9BFC1C30:01C8D1AC] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Comment T38 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK, closing issue 79. PatC -----Original Message----- From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 7:01 AM To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap@frascone.com Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Comment T38 Ok with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 4:56 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Comment T38 > > All, > > Here is the IESG Review Comment: > > T38 - Section 9 should start with deployment considerations. It > looks like there > are some assumptions made here about at least an AC being present > and configured at > deployment, and other such. This should be made clear. > > I have made changes to the introductory paragraph in section 9. The > text now reads: > > > This section defines CAPWAP operations responsible for debugging, > gathering statistics, logging, and firmware management. > The management > operations defined in this section are used by the AC to either > push/pull information to/from the WTP, or request that the WTP > reboot. > This section does not deal with the management of the AC per se, > and > assumes that the AC is operational and configured. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 18:34:17 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBDA83A683E for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:34:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mky8uhYkWken for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:34:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07A1E3A682B for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:34:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9355743A806 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:35:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E134C4400CE for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:34:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B7C53628006 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:34:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1002C3628004 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:34:55 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.68.10.87 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:34:54 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,669,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="33073828" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 18:34:54 -0700 Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com (sj-core-3.cisco.com [171.68.223.137]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5J1YsVN022008; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:34:54 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5J1YpRj026603; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:34:54 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:34:52 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:34:51 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE4E0@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T40 Thread-Index: AcjRY5z4L7JXCjOWR1OVqaCJuK0ibAACSQOQAA/4FvA= References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE1AF@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 01:34:52.0824 (UTC) FILETIME=[ABE04180:01C8D1AC] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T40 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK, closing issue 81. PatC -----Original Message----- From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 10:58 AM To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap@frascone.com Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T40 OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 8:08 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T40 > > All, > > Here is the IESG Review Comment: > > T40 - The same section should include information about impact on > network traffic. > What is the extra level of traffic that is expected by introducing > and deploying > CAPWAP? Is there any limit of AC load that needs to be taken into > consideration in > order to avoid congestion on the network or on the AC? > Probably this section should > be renamed to also cover Operational considerations, > > I have added the following paragraph to the section, along with the > modified section name: > > > 13. Operational Considerations > [...] > > The CAPWAP protocol's control channel is fairly light weight from > a traffic perspective. Once the WTP has been configured, the WTP > sends > periodic statistics. Further, the specification calls for a > keepalive > packet to be sent on the protocol's data channel to make sure that > any > possible middleboxes (e.g., NAT) maintain their UDP state. > The overhead > associated with the control and data channel is not expected to > impact > network traffic. That said, the CAPWAP protocol does allow for the > frequency of these packets to be modified through the > DataChannelKeepAlive and StatisticsTimer (see section 4.7.2 and > section 4.7.14, respectively). > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 18:37:18 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D59DF3A683E for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:37:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FnsP+cMiLrea for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:37:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E0753A682B for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:37:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 880E543A854 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:38:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3906F4400CF for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:37:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFEF73628007 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:37:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E66F23628004 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:37:50 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.117 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:37:50 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,669,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="115338673" Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 18:37:50 -0700 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5J1bo8R003527; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:37:50 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5J1boLi015471; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:37:50 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:36:45 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:36:44 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE4E3@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T39 Thread-Index: AcjRYa3C0bnbeGsrQvGRE/kpEcRVLwAC1YFwAA/yUDA= References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE1AE@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 01:36:45.0102 (UTC) FILETIME=[EECC84E0:01C8D1AC] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T39 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK, closing issue 80. PatC -----Original Message----- From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 10:59 AM To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap@frascone.com Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T39 OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 8:08 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T39 > > All, > > Here is the IESG Review Comment: > > T39. Section 13 is insufficient. The recommendation concerning > non-configurability > of WTPs makes, sense, but what about the ACS? How are ACs > configured? > It is OK to > say that they are configured by proprietary CLI and/or MIB > interfaces that will be > defined in other CAPWAP document and/or by NETCONF in the future, > but something > needs to be said. > > You are correct, the CAPWAP protocol does not provide management of > the AC. This is assumed to be done out of band. > I am therefore proposing the following text: > > > 13. Management Considerations > [...] > The CAPWAP protocol does not deal with the management of the ACs. > The AC is assumed to be configured through some separate management > interface, which could be via a proprietary CLI, SNMP, NETCONF or > some > other management protocol. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 18:37:19 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB5833A687F for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:37:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WkRrvswsuOY2 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:37:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11AAB3A682B for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:37:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 982CF43A877 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:38:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33A984400CE for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:37:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE43C3628001 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:37:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB5683628002 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:37:50 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.72 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:37:50 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,669,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="81410124" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 18:37:50 -0700 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5J1boBg001978; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:37:50 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5J1boLk015471; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:37:50 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:37:31 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:37:31 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE4E4@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T3 Thread-Index: AcjRZYjU6qPXRkz+SLeMXbbYH0bnEAAB5GSAAA/5pSA= References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE1B1@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 01:37:31.0914 (UTC) FILETIME=[0AB376A0:01C8D1AD] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T3 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK, closing issue 44. PatC -----Original Message----- From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 11:00 AM To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap@frascone.com Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T3 OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 8:06 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T3 > > All, > > Here is the IESG Review Comment: > > T3 - Section 2 - 'Protocol Overview' describes the process of > discovery and > provisioning exchange between the AC and WTP. This seems to be > different than the > pre-provisioning phase described in Section 12.5. > Please clarify and bring this two sections in synch. Also be more > clear what > parameters are being provisioned in the provisioning exchanged > described here. > > I think the simplest thing to do is to add a single sentence stating > that pre-provisioning is required and a pointer to the appropriate > section: > > > 2. Protocol Overview > [...] > > The CAPWAP Protocol begins with a discovery phase. The WTPs send a > Discovery Request message, causing any Access Controller (AC) > receiving the message to respond with a Discovery Response message. > From the Discovery Response messages received, a WTP selects an AC > with which to establish a secure DTLS session. In order to > establish the secure DTLS connection, the WTP will need some amount > of pre-provisioning, which is specified in section 12.5. CAPWAP > protocol messages will be fragmented to the maximum length > discovered to be supported by the network. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 18:37:20 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DD933A682B for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:37:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m3hExUQvYnYC for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:37:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44FDB3A683E for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:37:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFA1043A6E2 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:38:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D4D84400D0 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:37:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B8DB3628008 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:37:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF4263628006 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:37:50 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.70 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:37:50 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,669,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="42411508" Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 18:37:50 -0700 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5J1boKP032755; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:37:50 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5J1boLg015471; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:37:50 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:35:44 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:35:44 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE4E1@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T16 Thread-Index: AcjRZJ67fXcwXVF2Q+aqIjuMbO8x0AACEdkgAA/0bJA= References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE1B0@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 01:35:44.0620 (UTC) FILETIME=[CABFB2C0:01C8D1AC] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T16 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK, closing issue 57. PatC -----Original Message----- From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 10:59 AM To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap@frascone.com Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T16 OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 8:08 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T16 > > All, > > Here is the IESG Review Comment: > > T16 - the document is not consistent in defining which one of the > configuration > objects is to be saved in non-volatile memory. For example in 4.6.7 > it is mentioned > that this message element information is not expected to be saved > in non-volatile > memory - if this is an exception what is the rule? > > Yes, it is an exception to the rule. However, to make this point > clear, I have added text to section 4.6: > > > 4.6. CAPWAP Protocol Message Elements [...] > Unless otherwise specified, any configuration information sent by > the > AC to the WTP MAY be saved to non-volatile storage (see section 8.1 > for more information). > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 18:38:22 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C67B03A687F for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:38:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M4-0YGlk2qtv for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:38:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08F3D3A682B for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:38:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9294543A870 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:39:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 099EE4400CE for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:38:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E18593628001 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:38:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50F3E3628005 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:38:02 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.117 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:38:02 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,669,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="115338732" Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 18:38:02 -0700 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5J1c2L0000490; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:38:02 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5J1c27G015647; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:38:02 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:38:01 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:38:01 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE4E5@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T37 Thread-Index: AcjRXNfIdQIr12toSPya4ui9rIYldQAEa8ogAA+imjA= References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE16A@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 01:38:01.0966 (UTC) FILETIME=[1C9D08E0:01C8D1AD] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T37 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK, closing issue 78. PatC -----Original Message----- From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 11:15 AM To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap@frascone.com Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T37 OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 7:25 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T37 > > All, > > Here is the IESG Review Comment: > > T37 - Section 8.1 - If the WTP opts to save the configuration > locally > - how is this > option selected? Is this a local WTP configurations issue? > If so please specify > > There are a couple of ways of dealing with this one: > 1. The simplest way of dealing with this would be to make this an > implementation decision. > 2. Allow the AC to configure this behavior. However, this would > require new message elements, additional text in the configuration > request messages, etc. > > Given that in the end, it really doesn't matter which way the WTP > decides to behave, I would prefer we go with option one and minimize > the changes to the spec at this point. > Therefore, my proposed text is: > > > 8.1. Configuration Consistency > > The CAPWAP protocol provides flexibility in how WTP configuration > is > managed. A WTP can behave in one of two ways, which is > implementation specific: > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 18:38:22 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F155B3A682B for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:38:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1oj7KxW+5q50 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:38:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 362633A683E for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:38:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF21643A851 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:39:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCED24400CE for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:38:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A30A23628005 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:38:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BC303628004 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:38:51 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.117 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:38:51 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,669,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="115339026" Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 18:38:50 -0700 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5J1covM004551; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:38:50 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5J1cmd6016067; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:38:50 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:38:28 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:38:27 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE4E6@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T36 Thread-Index: AcjRW93ynrjh8wgaTKW/sRvbBPY7pwAA/mewAAPZ1BAAD3iEoA== References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE16E@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 01:38:28.0131 (UTC) FILETIME=[2C357F30:01C8D1AD] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T36 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK, closing issue 77. PatC -----Original Message----- From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 11:16 AM To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap@frascone.com Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T36 OK with me. (aha!) Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 7:25 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T36 > > All, > > Here is the IESG Review Comment: > > T36 - Section 8.1 - 'The WTP retains the configuration of > parameters provided by > the AC that are non-default values.' - does this mean that any > parameter that has a > default value needs not be stored in non-volatile memory, and the > WTP will restore > the defaults for these parameters on all reset, power-up or > bootstrap event? > > Fair comment - the text was clearly vague. I am proposing the > following > text: > > > 8.1. Configuration Consistency > [...] > > 2. The WTP saves the configuration of parameters provided by the > AC that are non-default values into local non-volatile memory, > and are enforced during the WTP's power up initialization phase. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 18:39:52 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E35703A683E for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:39:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iSAHpxmAM52i for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:39:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC0C23A682B for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:39:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76F0443A884 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:40:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 428C14400CF for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:40:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1163F3628008 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:40:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1AB73628002 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:40:29 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.71 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:40:29 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,669,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="58350118" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 18:40:29 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5J1eTXv004932; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:40:29 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5J1eSiq014555; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:40:29 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:40:28 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:40:27 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE4E7@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T20 Thread-Index: AcjQkn9mLbew6ImAQo6yHEyLcw3lcQBGuf+g References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E9813C@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Margaret Wasserman" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 01:40:28.0237 (UTC) FILETIME=[73CC37D0:01C8D1AD] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Cc: capwap@frascone.com Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T20 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK, well I'm getting conflicting requests from the AD and the chair, so I need the two of you to agree on a path forward. PatC -----Original Message----- From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:margaret@thingmagic.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 8:54 AM To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) Cc: capwap@frascone.com Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T20 Again, I do not see any value in renumbering fields at this point. We can always use 0 later if we run out... Margaret On Jun 16, 2008, at 11:35 AM, Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) wrote: > All, > > Here is the IESG Review Comment: > > T20 - Section 4.6.16, 4.6.17, 4.6.33, 4.6.36, 4.6.42, 4.6.43 - why > do the encoded > values start from 1 and not from 0? > > There is actually no reason why the values did not start at zero. I > will make the changes to renumber the values to start at zero (0). The > only one I disagree with is 4.6.43, because this is a bit field, but I > noticed that the text did not explicitely call for a bit field, so I > also made the necessary change. > > > 4.6.16. Data Transfer Data > [...] > Data Type: An 8-bit value the type of information being sent. > The > following values are supported: > > 0 - WTP Crash Data > > 1 - WTP Memory Dump > > 4.6.17. Data Transfer Mode > [...] > Data Type: An 8-bit value the type of information being > requested. > The following values are supported: > > 0 - WTP Crash Data > > 1 - WTP Memory Dump > > 4.6.33. Radio Administrative State > [...] > Admin State: An 8-bit value representing the administrative state > of the radio. The default value for the Admin State field is > listed in Section 4.8.1. The following values are supported: > > 0 - Enabled > > 1 - Disabled > > 4.6.36. Returned Message Element > [...] > Reason: The reason why the configuration in the offending message > element could not be applied by the WTP. > > 0 - Unknown Message Element > > 1 - Unsupported Message Element > > 2 - Unknown Message Element Value > > 3 - Unsupported Message Element Value > > 4.6.42. WTP Fallback > [...] > > Mode: The 8-bit value indicates the status of automatic CAPWAP > fallback on the WTP. When enabled, if the WTP detects that its > primary AC is available, and that the WTP is not connected to > the > primary AC, the WTP SHOULD automatically disconnect from its > current AC and reconnect to its primary AC. If disabled, the > WTP > will only reconnect to its primary AC through manual > intervention > (e.g., through the Reset Request message). The default value > for > this field is specified in Section 4.8.10. The following values > are supported: > > 0 - Enabled > > 1 - Disabled > > Frame Tunnel Mode: The Frame Tunnel mode specifies the tunneling > modes for station data that are supported by the WTP. The > following > values are supported for this bit field: > > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 18:40:43 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4256E3A683E for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:40:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RXqRfSHM7+xL for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:40:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFC0B3A682B for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:40:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B21A43A884 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:41:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 142084400D2 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:41:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8A363628002 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:41:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6A873628006 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:41:11 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.72 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:41:11 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,669,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="81410860" Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 18:41:11 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5J1fBfM007451; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:41:11 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5J1fBVX015056; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:41:11 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:41:11 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:41:10 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE4E8@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] IESG Review Comment T24 Thread-Index: AcjQmwuGNTbm0Ch9QsWkk3oGz7qkwQBEnRAQ References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98129@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com><27CB5D32-493A-474F-942E-A18B9C72E123@thingmagic.com> From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Margaret Wasserman" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 01:41:11.0247 (UTC) FILETIME=[8D6F05F0:01C8D1AD] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Cc: capwap@frascone.com Subject: Re: [Capwap] IESG Review Comment T24 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com So I frankly don't care, but I was trying to address the issue raised by the IESG. Should I follow the desire of the chair or the AD? PatC -----Original Message----- From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:margaret@thingmagic.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 9:56 AM To: Margaret Wasserman Cc: capwap@frascone.com Subject: Re: [Capwap] IESG Review Comment T24 I just spoke with Dan Romascanu on the phone (for a previously scheduled CAPWAP status call), and I realized that my message about this issue may have been unnecessarily terse... It is my understanding that we will always know the length of the packet received at the CAPWAP layer, because it will be passed up to us from the lower layer. Effectively, we will get a buffer and a data length from the lower layer. I don't know of any system that wouldn't provide that information. If we add a CAPWAP data length, we must always compare the CAPWAP data length to the buffer length we received. This comparison could theoretically result in one of three answers: (1) The CAPWAP data length indicates that the data ends at the end of the lower-layer buffer. This is the expected case, and the only case supported by the -10 version of the spec. In this case the CAPWAP data length adds no value. (2) The CAPWAP data length indicates that the data ends before the end of the lower-layer buffer. I don't believe that this should ever happen because the other side should have passed its the correct amount of CAPWAP data (and only that data) through DTLS and that's what we should have recieved. I'm not sure whether we should accept the data in this case or return an error. (3) The CAPWAP data length indicates that the data ends after the end of the lower-layer buffer. In this case, we definitely have to return an error, because we don't want to read off of the end of the lower layer buffer. So, having a CAPWAP data length adds processing (to do this comparison), and I don't see that it adds any value. It also breaks compatibility with previous versions of CAPWAP (such as -10), so I don't personally think we should add it. Margaret On Jun 17, 2008, at 11:51 AM, Margaret Wasserman wrote: > > I'm personally not wild about changing the packet formats at this > point, but there does appear to be a technical justification for this > change... > > Are there actually systems on which you wouldn't know the packet size > at this layer, though? Or is this just a theoretical technical > justification? > > Margaret > > > > On Jun 16, 2008, at 11:35 AM, Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) wrote: > >> All, >> >> Here is the IESG Review Comment: >> >> T24 - Sections 4.6.27, 4.6.28 - should not these two messages >> include length of the >> Value fields? >> >> Originally, this was not included, because it could be inferred. >> However, I can imagine a software architecture where the packet size >> is not known when the message elements are parsed. So I have added >> them: >> >> >> 4.6.27. Image Data >> [...] >> >> 0 1 2 3 >> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >> | Data Type | Data Length | Data .... >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >> [...] >> >> Data: Length of data field, with a maximum size of 1024. >> >> Data: The Image Data field contains up to 1024 characters. If >> the >> block being sent is the last one, the Opcode is set to 2. >> The AC >> MAY opt to abort the data transfer by setting the Opcode to 5. >> When the Opcode is 5, the Value field has a zero length. >> >> 4.6.28. Image Identifier >> [...] >> 0 1 2 3 >> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >> | Vendor Identifier | >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >> | Value Length | Data... >> >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >> [...] >> >> Data: Length of data field, with a maximum size of 65535. >> >> Data: A variable length UTF-8 encoded string containing the >> firmware >> identifier to be run on the WTP. >> >> >> PatC >> _________________________________________________________________ >> To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: >> http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap >> >> Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 18:41:50 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84DC73A683E for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:41:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id twV5I-lG8wLn for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:41:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68AAF3A682B for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:41:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 045A043A88A for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:42:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07F5F4400D5 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:42:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E156E3628007 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:42:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD43C3628004 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:42:10 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.70 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:42:10 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,669,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="42411863" Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 18:42:10 -0700 Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com (sj-core-4.cisco.com [171.68.223.138]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5J1gA1x008592; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:42:10 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5J1WK0F008508; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:42:10 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:42:01 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:42:01 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE4E9@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T5 Thread-Index: AcjQkc5SJ2x8xiE+RKuID6LxLyVgogBG9AdQ References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98131@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Margaret Wasserman" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 01:42:01.0313 (UTC) FILETIME=[AB467D10:01C8D1AD] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Cc: capwap@frascone.com Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T5 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK, again I need you and Dan to agree. I will make whatever change is necessary. Dan are you ok with zero being marked as reserved? PatC -----Original Message----- From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:margaret@thingmagic.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 8:50 AM To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) Cc: capwap@frascone.com Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T5 Hi Pat, I agree with your answer -- this is not a bitmask. But, I'd personally prefer that we _not_ renumber the fields at this point. If we do renumber them, this will make -11 incompatible with -10 in a way that I don't feel is justified by the benefit. Instead, I'd personally prefer that you list 0 as "reserved for future use" and make it clear in the IANA considerations section that value 4-31 are available for IANA allocation. There are already implementations of CAPWAP, and EPCglobal is planning an interoperability event in July (for the base CAPWAP spec and the EPCglobal DCI specification), so I think it is too late to start renumbering fields without an important technical reason to do so. Margaret On Jun 16, 2008, at 11:35 AM, Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) wrote: > Here is the IESG Issue: > > T5 - Section 4.3, pag 47 - As I understand the 5 bit field encodes > 32 possible > wireless bindings (i.e. it's not a bit mask). If true it would be > good to make this > explicit. My question is whether there is any reason to start with > value 1 and not > with value 0? Assuming this is already deployed, will 0 be a value > to use, or does > it have any special significance? > > No, this is not a bitmask. I'm not actually sure how to explicitely > state it isn't a bitmask, because in my mind any field is not a > bitmask unless it is explicitely stated, so I will use the term > numerical. > Further, there is no reason why zero cannot be used, so I'll renumber > the fields to start at zero. > > So I am proposing the following text: > > > WBID: A 5 bit numerical field which is the wireless binding > identifier. The numerical identifier will indicate the type > of wireless packet associated with the radio. The following > numerical values are defined: > > 0 - IEEE 802.11 > 1 - IEEE 802.16 > 2 - EPCGlobal > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 21:54:03 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2B3F3A6912 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:54:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WOcgCckVvAk8 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:54:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C29323A682B for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:54:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6375F1C40F93 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:54:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5653A4400CE for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:52:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97F7E3648006 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:52:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE62A3648001 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:52:48 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.68.10.87 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:52:48 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,670,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="33089284" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 21:52:48 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5J4qmDK018111; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:52:48 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5J4qmhq001002; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 04:52:48 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:52:48 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:52:47 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE514@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] IESG Review Comment T22 Thread-Index: AcjPMvqdllbXE16MT7iJmGcNyGLN6ABP5q2AAFVRBZA= References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E9813E@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 04:52:48.0355 (UTC) FILETIME=[523E7B30:01C8D1C8] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Capwap] IESG Review Comment T22 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Ok, I understand the question now. This message element is used by the WTP to tell its AC that someone has hijacked its IP address - so we already know the MAC address of the WTP. The MAC address that is communicated in the message element is that of the other host that is using the WTP's IP address. The text reads: The Duplicate IPv4 Address message element is used by a WTP to inform an AC that it has detected another IP device using the same IP address that the WTP is currently using. The length field is used to specify whether the MAC address is 6 or 8 octets, [EUI-48] and [EUI-64], respectively: Length: The length of the MAC Address field. The following formats, and lengths, are supported [EUI-48] and [EUI-64]. PatC -----Original Message----- From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 5:11 AM To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap@frascone.com Subject: RE: [Capwap] IESG Review Comment T22 Let me try to clarify my question. The length field indicates the length of a list of MAC addresses that were detected to be behind duplicate IP addresses (IPv4 and IPv6 respectively). Why would this length be anything but 12 (i.e. 2 MAC addresses?) - do we need to support more the detection of more than two addresses? - why would length of MAC addresses behind IPv4 addresses be different than the length of the addresses behind IPv6 addresses? Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 6:36 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] IESG Review Comment T22 > > All, > > Here is the IESG Review Comment: > > T22 - Sections 4.2.24, 4.2.25 - why are the length field defined as > >= 12, and >= > 24 respectively. Is this triplicate addresses? Or more? > And if such cases exist, is > this important to detect and report all in one message? > > I'm not sure that the comment makes sense since the length of the > field is correct. In both cases we assume a minimum MAC Address length > of 6 octets. I believe this comment is invalid. > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 22:07:43 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A20F3A68B7 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:07:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OYMN78WTFS-0 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:07:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4D273A6875 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:07:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C52643A598 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:08:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7C334400D1 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:06:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A65703648006 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:06:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95A923648005 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:06:17 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.72 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:06:17 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,670,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="81458182" Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 22:06:13 -0700 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5J56DjI007746; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:06:13 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5J56DCO021776; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 05:06:13 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:06:13 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:06:12 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE51A@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T12 Thread-Index: AcjPELu416c4qMlBRmmB9tpGnVSLxQAtoMNwAAVS24AAewPvAA== References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98146@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 05:06:13.0178 (UTC) FILETIME=[31F4B9A0:01C8D1CA] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T12 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com I think 4/5 is odd, personally. However, I think I have a better idea, and one that I think will be MUCH clearer. In order to help express the idea, I will include the whole text for the AC Descriptor section. If this format works for you, I will replicate it in another two areas in the spec that I had updated due to another IESG review comment. 4.6.1. AC Descriptor The AC Descriptor message element is used by the AC to communicate its current state. The value contains the following fields. 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Stations | Limit | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Active WTPs | Max WTPs | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Security | R-MAC Field | Reserved1 | DTLS Policy | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AC Information... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Type: 1 for AC Descriptor Length: >= 12 Stations: The number of stations currently served by the AC Limit: The maximum number of stations supported by the AC Active WTPs: The number of WTPs currently attached to the AC Max WTPs: The maximum number of WTPs supported by the AC Security: A 8 bit mask specifying the authentication credential type supported by the AC. The following values are supported (see Section 2.4.4): 1 - X.509 Certificate Based 2 - Pre-Shared Secret R-MAC Field: The AC supports the optional Radio MAC Address field in the CAPWAP transport Header (see Section 4.3). Reserved: A set of reserved bits for future use. All implementations complying with this protocol MUST set to zero any bits that are reserved in the version of the protocol supported by that implementation. Receivers MUST ignore all bits not defined for the version of the protocol they support. DTLS Policy: The AC communicates its policy on the use of DTLS for the CAPWAP data channel. The AC MAY communicate more than one supported option, represented by the bit field below. The WTP MUST abide by one of the options communicated by AC. The following bit field values are supported: 1 - Clear Text Data Channel Supported 2 - DTLS Enabled Data Channel Supported AC Information: The AC Descriptor message element contains multiple AC Information sub-elements, and defines two sub-types, each of which MUST be present. The AC Information sub-element has the following format: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AC Information Vendor Identifier | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AC Information Type | AC Information Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AC Information Data... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ AC Information Vendor Identifier: A 32-bit value containing the IANA assigned "SMI Network Management Private Enterprise Codes" AC Information Type: Vendor specific encoding of AC information. The following values are supported. Both the Hardware and Software Version sub-elements MUST be included in the AC Descriptor message element. 4 - Hardware Version: The AC's hardware version number. 5 - Software Version: The AC's Software (firmware) version number. AC Information Length: Length of vendor specific encoding of AC information, with a maximum size of 1024. AC Information Data: Vendor specific encoding of AC information. -----Original Message----- From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 11:14 AM To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap@frascone.com Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T12 I won't fight this to death but I still find it confusing. Writhing 4 in a field which can be either 4 or 5 may confuse other as well. What about 4/5? Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 6:40 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T12 > > All, > > The following is the IESG Comment Review: > > T12 - Section 4.6.1 - in the AC Descriptor protocol diagram delete > =4 from the Type > filed (it can be 4 or 5 as I understand) > > Actually, the reason why this is part of the diagram is because both 4 > and 5 MUST be included (as described in the field description). So in > order to make this much clearer, we have included this in the diagram. > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 22:24:01 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99A103A6875 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:24:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lzwKv2Vll3l0 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:24:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29DD83A682B for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:24:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04C371C40FA8 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:24:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0DEB4400D2 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:20:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE9193648003 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:20:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EB123648002 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:20:21 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.117 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:20:21 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,670,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="115403418" Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 22:20:16 -0700 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5J5KGxm026124; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:20:16 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5J5KGx8000687; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 05:20:16 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:20:16 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:20:15 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE520@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T5 Thread-Index: AcjPCp14qviMU/+ZRc2CJUKTfJjQ4gAxDkUwAH8rmnA= References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98131@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "David B. Nelson" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 05:20:16.0547 (UTC) FILETIME=[28A49F30:01C8D1CC] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T5 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Ok, that sounds good. I have made the necessary changes throughout the spec. 4.6.1. AC Descriptor [...] AC Information Type: Vendor specific encoding of AC information. The following enumerated values are supported. Both the Hardware and Software Version sub-elements MUST be included in the AC Descriptor message element. 4.6.15. CAPWAP Transport Protocol [...] Transport: The transport to use for the CAPWAP data channel. The following enumerated values are supported: 4.6.16. Data Transfer Data [...] Data Type: An 8-bit value the type of information being sent. The following enumerated values are supported: 4.6.17. Data Transfer Mode [...] Data Type: An 8-bit value the type of information being requested. The following enumerated values are supported: 4.6.23. Discovery Type [...] Discovery Type: An 8-bit value indicating how the WTP discovered the AC. The following enumerated values are supported: 4.6.27. Image Data [...] Opcode: An 8-bit value representing the transfer opcode. The following enumerated values are supported: 4.6.33. Radio Administrative State [...] Admin State: An 8-bit value representing the administrative state of the radio. The default value for the Admin State field is listed in Section 4.8.1. The following enumerated values are supported: 4.6.34. Radio Operational State [...] Cause: When a radio is inoperable, the cause field contains the reason the radio is out of service. The following enumerated values are supported: 4.6.35. Result Code [...] Result Code: The following enumerated values are defined: 4.6.36. Returned Message Element [...] Reason: The reason why the configuration in the offending message element could not be applied by the WTP. The following enumerated values are supported: 4.6.42. WTP Fallback [...] Mode: The 8-bit value indicates the status of automatic CAPWAP fallback on the WTP. When enabled, if the WTP detects that its primary AC is available, and that the WTP is not connected to the primary AC, the WTP SHOULD automatically disconnect from its current AC and reconnect to its primary AC. If disabled, the WTP will only reconnect to its primary AC through manual intervention (e.g., through the Reset Request message). The default value for this field is specified in Section 4.8.11. The following enumerated values are supported: 4.6.46. WTP MAC Type [...] MAC Type: The MAC mode of operation supported by the WTP. The following enumerated values are supported: 4.6.49. WTP Radio Statistics [...] Last Failure Type: The last WTP failure. The following enumerated values are supported: 4.6.50. WTP Reboot Statistics [...] Last Failure Type: The failure type of the most recent WTP failure. The following enumerated values are supported: PatC -----Original Message----- From: David B. Nelson [mailto:dnelson@elbrysnetworks.com] Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 9:35 AM To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap@frascone.com Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T5 > No, this is not a bitmask. I'm not actually sure how to explicitely > state it isn't a bitmask, because in my mind any field is not a > bitmask unless it is explicitely stated, so I will use the term numerical. Or maybe the term "enumerated value"? _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 22:30:29 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D87C3A6990 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:30:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0DCop3GvO0Sb for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:30:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC8103A6912 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:30:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67F401C40F3A for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:31:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92FD74400D2 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:29:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 445E43648005 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:29:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8788A3648002 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:29:26 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.71 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:29:26 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,670,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="58390567" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 22:29:26 -0700 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5J5TQtE001983 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:29:26 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5J5TQpY004524 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 05:29:26 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:29:25 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:29:25 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE526@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: New Issue 102: Join to Image Data state transition issue on the AC Thread-Index: AcjRzW+OmsLinW4xQ7SZOsbtA1VfRQ== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 05:29:25.0942 (UTC) FILETIME=[701BA560:01C8D1CD] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] New Issue 102: Join to Image Data state transition issue on the AC X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com The original issue stated: In page 24/25. it is said: AC: join -> image data happens when the AC receives the image data request from WTP. AC: join -> configure happens immediately after the AC transmits the join resp. Does the WTP only send the image data request after it receives the join resp? If so, the AC will not be able to go into the image data state. Did I miss something here? You raise a very real ommision in the text. I am making a change that has the least impact to the spec, and no impact to the state machine: 2.3. CAPWAP State Machine Definition [...] Join to Image Data (f): This state transition is used by the WTP and the AC to download executable firmware. [...] AC: This state transition occurs when the AC receives the Image Data Request message from the WTP, after having sent its Join Response to the WTP. The AC MUST transmit an Image Data Response message (see Section 9.1.2) to the WTP, which includes a portion of the firmware. The AC MUST start the ImageDataStartTimer timer (see Section 4.7). N _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 22:32:59 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 058593A6877 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:32:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wn6LDtvzgyjz for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:32:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B3773A6774 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:32:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66CCA1C40F6E for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:33:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A183E4400D8 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:31:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 291913648005 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:31:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A775F3648002 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:31:51 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.117 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:31:51 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,670,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="115406417" Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 22:31:51 -0700 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5J5VpTu003307 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:31:51 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5J5Vpcg009365 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 05:31:51 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:31:51 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:31:49 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE527@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: New Issue 103: Invalid length information message element Thread-Index: AcjRzcXokVs160MwQ0GyC68GLF0+fA== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 05:31:51.0185 (UTC) FILETIME=[C6ADF810:01C8D1CD] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] New Issue 103: Invalid length information message element X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com The original issue raised was: Also, Page 76, 4.6.29 image information. The length should be 20 instead of 18, right? The corrected text is: Type: 29 for Image Information Length: 20 _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 18 22:34:34 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 600993A68BB for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:34:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O0ogvu+dxSNi for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:34:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2527C3A6877 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:34:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACBCA1C40F5F for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:35:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BE7F4400DA for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:32:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 066163648009 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:32:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73EE03648007 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:32:57 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.72 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:32:57 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,670,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="81464706" Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jun 2008 22:32:57 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5J5Wvhf004539; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:32:57 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5J5WvdH026407; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 05:32:57 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:32:56 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:32:55 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE528@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] questions ondraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-specification-10.txt Thread-Index: AcjQ40YuYEtO9IZoRfuuUbnAq+BiBwA6oOYw References: From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Yong Zhang" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 05:32:56.0824 (UTC) FILETIME=[EDCDAF80:01C8D1CD] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Capwap] questions ondraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-specification-10.txt X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Thanks for raising those two issues. They were real, and I have created two issues to track them 102 and 103. I have created two separate threads to monitor these two issues. I will publish the updated spec once we are done dealing with the issues raised during the IESG review. PatC -----Original Message----- From: Yong Zhang [mailto:yozhang@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 6:32 PM To: capwap@frascone.com Subject: [Capwap] questions ondraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-specification-10.txt Hi, I have a question on the state machine in the AC side: In page 24/25. it is said: AC: join -> image data happens when the AC receives the image data request from WTP. AC: join -> configure happens immediately after the AC transmits the join resp. Does the WTP only send the image data request after it receives the join resp? If so, the AC will not be able to go into the image data state. Did I miss something here? Also, Page 76, 4.6.29 image information. The length should be 20 instead of 18, right? Where can I find an latest version of this draft? Since I joined the email list last week, I saw a lot of emails on the spec. changes. Thanks! Yong _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Thu Jun 19 00:14:47 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45BB43A68B9 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:14:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.576 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.576 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.023, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aiuqtO9MnD61 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:14:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F4A93A6892 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:14:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51D5A43053A for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:15:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A34C74400DC for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:15:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7682D3648006 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:15:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52F213648002 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:15:24 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Sender first seen 2 days 13:11:47 ago / dynamic or unknown reverse DNS) Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:15:23 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,671,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="111770944" Received: from unknown (HELO nj300815-nj-erheast.avaya.com) ([198.152.6.5]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 19 Jun 2008 03:15:21 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,671,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="213983681" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by nj300815-nj-erheast-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 19 Jun 2008 03:15:20 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:15:17 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE4E9@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T5 Thread-Index: AcjQkc5SJ2x8xiE+RKuID6LxLyVgogBG9AdQAAuke/A= References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98131@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE4E9@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , "Margaret Wasserman" Cc: capwap@frascone.com Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T5 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Yes, I can live with this. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 4:42 AM > To: Margaret Wasserman > Cc: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T5 > > OK, again I need you and Dan to agree. I will make whatever > change is necessary. > > Dan are you ok with zero being marked as reserved? > > PatC > > -----Original Message----- > From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:margaret@thingmagic.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 8:50 AM > To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) > Cc: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T5 > > > Hi Pat, > > I agree with your answer -- this is not a bitmask. > > But, I'd personally prefer that we _not_ renumber the fields at this > point. If we do renumber them, this will make -11 > incompatible with -10 > in a way that I don't feel is justified by the benefit. Instead, I'd > personally prefer that you list 0 as "reserved for future use" > and make it clear in the IANA considerations section that > value 4-31 are > available for IANA allocation. > > There are already implementations of CAPWAP, and EPCglobal is planning > an interoperability event in July (for the base CAPWAP spec and the > EPCglobal DCI specification), so I think it is too late to start > renumbering fields without an important technical reason to do so. > > Margaret > > > > On Jun 16, 2008, at 11:35 AM, Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) wrote: > > > Here is the IESG Issue: > > > > T5 - Section 4.3, pag 47 - As I understand the 5 bit > field encodes > > 32 possible > > wireless bindings (i.e. it's not a bit mask). If true it > would be > > good to make this > > explicit. My question is whether there is any reason to > start with > > value 1 and not > > with value 0? Assuming this is already deployed, will 0 > be a value > > to use, or does > > it have any special significance? > > > > No, this is not a bitmask. I'm not actually sure how to explicitely > > state it isn't a bitmask, because in my mind any field is not a > > bitmask unless it is explicitely stated, so I will use the term > > numerical. > > Further, there is no reason why zero cannot be used, so > I'll renumber > > the fields to start at zero. > > > > So I am proposing the following text: > > > > > > WBID: A 5 bit numerical field which is the wireless binding > > identifier. The numerical identifier will indicate the type > > of wireless packet associated with the radio. The following > > numerical values are defined: > > > > 0 - IEEE 802.11 > > 1 - IEEE 802.16 > > 2 - EPCGlobal > > > > > > PatC > > _________________________________________________________________ > > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Thu Jun 19 00:15:19 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 299CD28C0F4 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:15:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.576 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.576 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.023, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2k9iJPDYksiO for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:15:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C8543A6B88 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:15:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5795D43067D for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:16:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4E644400DC for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:15:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 967BF3648006 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:15:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B91DF3648003 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:15:52 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:15:52 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,671,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="131886513" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 19 Jun 2008 03:15:51 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,671,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="220735696" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 19 Jun 2008 03:15:51 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:15:38 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE520@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T5 Thread-Index: AcjPCp14qviMU/+ZRc2CJUKTfJjQ4gAxDkUwAH8rmnAABC7hUA== References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98131@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE520@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , "David B. Nelson" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T5 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 8:20 AM > To: David B. Nelson; capwap@frascone.com > Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T5 > > Ok, that sounds good. I have made the necessary changes > throughout the spec. > > > 4.6.1. AC Descriptor > [...] > AC Information Type: Vendor specific encoding of AC > information. > The following enumerated values are supported. Both the > Hardware and Software Version sub-elements MUST be > included in > the AC Descriptor message element. > > 4.6.15. CAPWAP Transport Protocol > [...] > Transport: The transport to use for the CAPWAP data channel. The > following enumerated values are supported: > > 4.6.16. Data Transfer Data > [...] > Data Type: An 8-bit value the type of information being > sent. The > following enumerated values are supported: > > 4.6.17. Data Transfer Mode > [...] > Data Type: An 8-bit value the type of information being > requested. > The following enumerated values are supported: > > 4.6.23. Discovery Type > [...] > Discovery Type: An 8-bit value indicating how the WTP discovered > the AC. The following enumerated values are supported: > > 4.6.27. Image Data > [...] > Opcode: An 8-bit value representing the transfer opcode. The > following enumerated values are supported: > > 4.6.33. Radio Administrative State > [...] > Admin State: An 8-bit value representing the administrative state > of the radio. The default value for the Admin State field is > listed in Section 4.8.1. The following enumerated values are > supported: > > 4.6.34. Radio Operational State > [...] > Cause: When a radio is inoperable, the cause field contains the > reason the radio is out of service. The following enumerated > values are supported: > > 4.6.35. Result Code > [...] > Result Code: The following enumerated values are defined: > > 4.6.36. Returned Message Element > [...] > Reason: The reason why the configuration in the offending message > element could not be applied by the WTP. The following > enumerated > values are supported: > > 4.6.42. WTP Fallback > [...] > Mode: The 8-bit value indicates the status of automatic CAPWAP > fallback on the WTP. When enabled, if the WTP detects that its > primary AC is available, and that the WTP is not > connected to the > primary AC, the WTP SHOULD automatically disconnect from its > current AC and reconnect to its primary AC. If > disabled, the WTP > will only reconnect to its primary AC through manual > intervention > (e.g., through the Reset Request message). The default > value for > this field is specified in Section 4.8.11. The following > enumerated values are supported: > > 4.6.46. WTP MAC Type > [...] > MAC Type: The MAC mode of operation supported by the WTP. The > following enumerated values are supported: > > 4.6.49. WTP Radio Statistics > [...] > Last Failure Type: The last WTP failure. The following > enumerated > values are supported: > > 4.6.50. WTP Reboot Statistics > [...] > Last Failure Type: The failure type of the most recent > WTP failure. > The following enumerated values are supported: > > > > PatC > > > -----Original Message----- > From: David B. Nelson [mailto:dnelson@elbrysnetworks.com] > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 9:35 AM > To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap@frascone.com > Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T5 > > > No, this is not a bitmask. I'm not actually sure how to explicitely > > state it isn't a bitmask, because in my mind any field is not a > > bitmask unless it is explicitely stated, so I will use the term > numerical. > > Or maybe the term "enumerated value"? > > > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Thu Jun 19 05:08:24 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D23633A6A1A for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 05:08:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UBZuulxRBGmv for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 05:08:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B67043A681C for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 05:08:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B5FF43294C for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 05:09:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 379674400CC for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 05:09:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07E3434AC3A8 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 05:09:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B01E34AC3A5 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 05:09:00 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from exchange.tm.thingmagic.com (vpn.thingmagic.com [204.9.221.19]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 05:08:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.36.0.26] (76.24.195.210) by exchange.tm.thingmagic.com (10.0.0.9) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.278.0; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 08:08:55 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE4E8@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98129@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com><27CB5D32-493A-474F-942E-A18B9C72E123@thingmagic.com> <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE4E8@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Message-ID: <956B5496-854A-41AF-ACEA-BC480E43690A@thingmagic.com> From: Margaret Wasserman Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 08:08:54 -0400 To: Pat Calhoun X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753.1) Cc: "capwap@frascone.com" Subject: Re: [Capwap] IESG Review Comment T24 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Hi Pat, On Jun 18, 2008, at 9:41 PM, Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) wrote: > So I frankly don't care, but I was trying to address the issue > raised by > the IESG. Should I follow the desire of the chair or the AD? This isn't really how it works... Dan expressed an opinion about the spec. I expressed a dissenting opinion. Neither of us just gets to decide... We should see if others in the WG have an opinion and whether there is any consensus on the issue. It might be helpful if Dan responds to my message to explain his reasoning, point out flaws in my argument and/or say that he has changed his mind. I would guess that most of the WG members have not stayed current with the >100 messages that have come out in the past few days. Maybe once you and Dan are done resolving all of the non-contentious issues, one of us could send a message summarizing the remaining issues and asking for others' opinions? Margaret > > PatC > > -----Original Message----- > From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:margaret@thingmagic.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 9:56 AM > To: Margaret Wasserman > Cc: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: Re: [Capwap] IESG Review Comment T24 > > > I just spoke with Dan Romascanu on the phone (for a previously > scheduled > CAPWAP status call), and I realized that my message about this > issue may > have been unnecessarily terse... > > It is my understanding that we will always know the length of the > packet > received at the CAPWAP layer, because it will be passed up to us from > the lower layer. Effectively, we will get a buffer and a data length > from the lower layer. I don't know of any system that wouldn't > provide > that information. > > If we add a CAPWAP data length, we must always compare the CAPWAP data > length to the buffer length we received. This comparison could > theoretically result in one of three answers: > > (1) The CAPWAP data length indicates that the data ends at the end of > the lower-layer buffer. This is the expected case, and the only case > supported by the -10 version of the spec. In this case the CAPWAP > data > length adds no value. > > (2) The CAPWAP data length indicates that the data ends before the end > of the lower-layer buffer. I don't believe that this should ever > happen > because the other side should have passed its the correct amount of > CAPWAP data (and only that data) through DTLS and that's what we > should > have recieved. I'm not sure whether we should accept the data in this > case or return an error. > > (3) The CAPWAP data length indicates that the data ends after the > end of > the lower-layer buffer. In this case, we definitely have to return an > error, because we don't want to read off of the end of the lower layer > buffer. > > So, having a CAPWAP data length adds processing (to do this > comparison), > and I don't see that it adds any value. It also breaks compatibility > with previous versions of CAPWAP (such as -10), so I don't personally > think we should add it. > > Margaret > > > > On Jun 17, 2008, at 11:51 AM, Margaret Wasserman wrote: > >> >> I'm personally not wild about changing the packet formats at this >> point, but there does appear to be a technical justification for this >> change... >> >> Are there actually systems on which you wouldn't know the packet size >> at this layer, though? Or is this just a theoretical technical >> justification? >> >> Margaret >> >> >> >> On Jun 16, 2008, at 11:35 AM, Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) wrote: >> >>> All, >>> >>> Here is the IESG Review Comment: >>> >>> T24 - Sections 4.6.27, 4.6.28 - should not these two messages >>> include length of the >>> Value fields? >>> >>> Originally, this was not included, because it could be inferred. >>> However, I can imagine a software architecture where the packet size >>> is not known when the message elements are parsed. So I have added >>> them: >>> >>> >>> 4.6.27. Image Data >>> [...] >>> >>> 0 1 2 3 >>> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 >>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >>> | Data Type | Data Length | Data .... >>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >>> [...] >>> >>> Data: Length of data field, with a maximum size of 1024. >>> >>> Data: The Image Data field contains up to 1024 characters. If >>> the >>> block being sent is the last one, the Opcode is set to 2. >>> The AC >>> MAY opt to abort the data transfer by setting the Opcode to 5. >>> When the Opcode is 5, the Value field has a zero length. >>> >>> 4.6.28. Image Identifier >>> [...] >>> 0 1 2 3 >>> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 >>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >>> | Vendor Identifier | >>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >>> | Value Length | Data... >>> >>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >>> [...] >>> >>> Data: Length of data field, with a maximum size of 65535. >>> >>> Data: A variable length UTF-8 encoded string containing the >>> firmware >>> identifier to be run on the WTP. >>> >>> >>> PatC >>> _________________________________________________________________ >>> To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: >>> http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap >>> >>> Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap >> >> _________________________________________________________________ >> To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: >> http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap >> >> Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Thu Jun 19 09:11:50 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 404F13A68CF for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:11:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z+3SFARXQPEX for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:11:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 597EE3A696B for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:11:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82BAD1C40FCF for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:12:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D65D14400ED for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:12:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 060D134AC1EC for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:12:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DF5534AC3A8 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:12:24 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.70 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:12:24 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,673,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="42576523" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 19 Jun 2008 09:12:20 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5JGCJu5031269 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:12:19 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5JGCIOo027675 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:12:19 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:12:07 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:12:06 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE616@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Closing our IESG Review Editorial Issues Thread-Index: AcjSJzgVFzToHbSTR4yt1ROtVmmkOQ== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 16:12:07.0605 (UTC) FILETIME=[38A67650:01C8D227] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] Closing our IESG Review Editorial Issues X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com All, I am closing the following issues since I simply made the recommended change, and I felt the changes were appropriate: Issue 92: E11 Issue 93: E12 Issue 94: E13 Issue 95: E14 Issue 96: E15 Issue 98: E17 PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Thu Jun 19 09:18:10 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A268928C1E5 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:18:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.574 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.574 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.025, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N3DkI+rglkJj for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:18:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC19828C117 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:18:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B03F433F2E for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:19:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E7424400ED for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:18:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BE4434AC1F4 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:18:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D19B234AC1F2 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:18:12 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Sender first seen 2 days 22:14:35 ago / dynamic or unknown reverse DNS) Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:18:11 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,673,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="111830907" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 19 Jun 2008 12:18:08 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,673,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="221025864" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 19 Jun 2008 12:18:07 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 18:18:03 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE616@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] Closing our IESG Review Editorial Issues Thread-Index: AcjSJzgVFzToHbSTR4yt1ROtVmmkOQAAMzBw References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE616@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] Closing our IESG Review Editorial Issues X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Great, thanks. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 7:12 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] Closing our IESG Review Editorial Issues > > All, > > I am closing the following issues since I simply made the > recommended change, and I felt the changes were appropriate: > > Issue 92: E11 > Issue 93: E12 > Issue 94: E13 > Issue 95: E14 > Issue 96: E15 > Issue 98: E17 > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Thu Jun 19 09:20:21 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20A613A6976 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:20:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ry3gwgdA6vaE for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:20:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 571713A690A for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:20:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A620D433280 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:20:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FDBF4400DD for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:20:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 181A834AC383 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:20:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AA0C34AC3DD for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:19:54 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.68.10.87 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:19:54 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,673,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="33223975" Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 19 Jun 2008 09:19:53 -0700 Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com (sj-core-3.cisco.com [171.68.223.137]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5JGJsm4025185; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:19:54 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5JGJrZj021470; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:19:53 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:19:53 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:19:52 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE629@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T5 Thread-Index: AcjPCp14qviMU/+ZRc2CJUKTfJjQ4gAxDkUwAH8rmnAABC7hUAAS/0Lw References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98131@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com><4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE520@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , "David B. Nelson" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 16:19:53.0749 (UTC) FILETIME=[4E7E6450:01C8D228] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T5 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Great, changed the terminology and marked the value zero as "reserved". Closing issue 46. PatC -----Original Message----- From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 12:16 AM To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); David B. Nelson; capwap@frascone.com Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T5 OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 8:20 AM > To: David B. Nelson; capwap@frascone.com > Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T5 > > Ok, that sounds good. I have made the necessary changes throughout the > spec. > > > 4.6.1. AC Descriptor > [...] > AC Information Type: Vendor specific encoding of AC > information. > The following enumerated values are supported. Both the > Hardware and Software Version sub-elements MUST be included > in > the AC Descriptor message element. > > 4.6.15. CAPWAP Transport Protocol > [...] > Transport: The transport to use for the CAPWAP data channel. The > following enumerated values are supported: > > 4.6.16. Data Transfer Data > [...] > Data Type: An 8-bit value the type of information being > sent. The > following enumerated values are supported: > > 4.6.17. Data Transfer Mode > [...] > Data Type: An 8-bit value the type of information being > requested. > The following enumerated values are supported: > > 4.6.23. Discovery Type > [...] > Discovery Type: An 8-bit value indicating how the WTP discovered > the AC. The following enumerated values are supported: > > 4.6.27. Image Data > [...] > Opcode: An 8-bit value representing the transfer opcode. The > following enumerated values are supported: > > 4.6.33. Radio Administrative State > [...] > Admin State: An 8-bit value representing the administrative state > of the radio. The default value for the Admin State field is > listed in Section 4.8.1. The following enumerated values are > supported: > > 4.6.34. Radio Operational State > [...] > Cause: When a radio is inoperable, the cause field contains the > reason the radio is out of service. The following enumerated > values are supported: > > 4.6.35. Result Code > [...] > Result Code: The following enumerated values are defined: > > 4.6.36. Returned Message Element > [...] > Reason: The reason why the configuration in the offending message > element could not be applied by the WTP. The following > enumerated > values are supported: > > 4.6.42. WTP Fallback > [...] > Mode: The 8-bit value indicates the status of automatic CAPWAP > fallback on the WTP. When enabled, if the WTP detects that its > primary AC is available, and that the WTP is not connected to > the > primary AC, the WTP SHOULD automatically disconnect from its > current AC and reconnect to its primary AC. If disabled, the > WTP > will only reconnect to its primary AC through manual > intervention > (e.g., through the Reset Request message). The default value > for > this field is specified in Section 4.8.11. The following > enumerated values are supported: > > 4.6.46. WTP MAC Type > [...] > MAC Type: The MAC mode of operation supported by the WTP. The > following enumerated values are supported: > > 4.6.49. WTP Radio Statistics > [...] > Last Failure Type: The last WTP failure. The following > enumerated > values are supported: > > 4.6.50. WTP Reboot Statistics > [...] > Last Failure Type: The failure type of the most recent > WTP failure. > The following enumerated values are supported: > > > > PatC > > > -----Original Message----- > From: David B. Nelson [mailto:dnelson@elbrysnetworks.com] > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 9:35 AM > To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap@frascone.com > Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T5 > > > No, this is not a bitmask. I'm not actually sure how to explicitely > > state it isn't a bitmask, because in my mind any field is not a > > bitmask unless it is explicitely stated, so I will use the term > numerical. > > Or maybe the term "enumerated value"? > > > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Thu Jun 19 09:26:55 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9690B3A6919 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:26:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6SL9buc2eHLi for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:26:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A5BE3A694C for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:26:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D63EA430AE1 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:27:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C77D4400ED for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:27:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2881134AC399 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:27:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1206634AC200 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:27:11 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.117 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:27:11 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,673,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="115620932" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 19 Jun 2008 09:27:10 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5JGRAcB008714; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:27:10 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5JGRAS4013561; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:27:10 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:27:10 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:27:09 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE639@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T20 Thread-Index: AcjQkn9mLbew6ImAQo6yHEyLcw3lcQBlnO2Q References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E9813C@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Margaret Wasserman" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 16:27:10.0050 (UTC) FILETIME=[528CA420:01C8D229] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Cc: capwap@frascone.com Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T20 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK, so given that Dan was comfortable simply marking zero (0) as reserved for issue T5, I have made the same change for this issue, which makes the next draft compatible with -10. 4.6.16. Data Transfer Data [...] Data Type: An 8-bit value the type of information being sent. The following enumerated values are supported: 0 - Reserved 1 - WTP Crash Data 2 - WTP Memory Dump 4.6.17. Data Transfer Mode [...] Data Type: An 8-bit value the type of information being requested. The following enumerated values are supported: 0 - Reserved 1 - WTP Crash Data 2 - WTP Memory Dump 4.6.33. Radio Administrative State [...] Admin State: An 8-bit value representing the administrative state of the radio. The default value for the Admin State field is listed in Section 4.8.1. The following enumerated values are supported: 0 - Reserved 1 - Enabled 2 - Disabled 4.6.36. Returned Message Element [...] Reason: The reason why the configuration in the offending message element could not be applied by the WTP. The following enumerated values are supported: 0 - Reserved 1 - Unknown Message Element 2 - Unsupported Message Element 3 - Unknown Message Element Value 4 - Unsupported Message Element Value 4.6.42. WTP Fallback [...] Mode: The 8-bit value indicates the status of automatic CAPWAP fallback on the WTP. When enabled, if the WTP detects that its primary AC is available, and that the WTP is not connected to the primary AC, the WTP SHOULD automatically disconnect from its current AC and reconnect to its primary AC. If disabled, the WTP will only reconnect to its primary AC through manual intervention (e.g., through the Reset Request message). The default value for this field is specified in Section 4.8.11. The following enumerated values are supported: 0 - Reserved 1 - Enabled 2 - Disabled PatC -----Original Message----- From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:margaret@thingmagic.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 8:54 AM To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) Cc: capwap@frascone.com Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T20 Again, I do not see any value in renumbering fields at this point. We can always use 0 later if we run out... Margaret On Jun 16, 2008, at 11:35 AM, Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) wrote: > All, > > Here is the IESG Review Comment: > > T20 - Section 4.6.16, 4.6.17, 4.6.33, 4.6.36, 4.6.42, 4.6.43 - why > do the encoded > values start from 1 and not from 0? > > There is actually no reason why the values did not start at zero. I > will make the changes to renumber the values to start at zero (0). The > only one I disagree with is 4.6.43, because this is a bit field, but I > noticed that the text did not explicitely call for a bit field, so I > also made the necessary change. > > > 4.6.16. Data Transfer Data > [...] > Data Type: An 8-bit value the type of information being sent. > The > following values are supported: > > 0 - WTP Crash Data > > 1 - WTP Memory Dump > > 4.6.17. Data Transfer Mode > [...] > Data Type: An 8-bit value the type of information being > requested. > The following values are supported: > > 0 - WTP Crash Data > > 1 - WTP Memory Dump > > 4.6.33. Radio Administrative State > [...] > Admin State: An 8-bit value representing the administrative state > of the radio. The default value for the Admin State field is > listed in Section 4.8.1. The following values are supported: > > 0 - Enabled > > 1 - Disabled > > 4.6.36. Returned Message Element > [...] > Reason: The reason why the configuration in the offending message > element could not be applied by the WTP. > > 0 - Unknown Message Element > > 1 - Unsupported Message Element > > 2 - Unknown Message Element Value > > 3 - Unsupported Message Element Value > > 4.6.42. WTP Fallback > [...] > > Mode: The 8-bit value indicates the status of automatic CAPWAP > fallback on the WTP. When enabled, if the WTP detects that its > primary AC is available, and that the WTP is not connected to > the > primary AC, the WTP SHOULD automatically disconnect from its > current AC and reconnect to its primary AC. If disabled, the > WTP > will only reconnect to its primary AC through manual > intervention > (e.g., through the Reset Request message). The default value > for > this field is specified in Section 4.8.10. The following values > are supported: > > 0 - Enabled > > 1 - Disabled > > Frame Tunnel Mode: The Frame Tunnel mode specifies the tunneling > modes for station data that are supported by the WTP. The > following > values are supported for this bit field: > > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Thu Jun 19 09:49:33 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6D8D3A682A for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:49:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WMD8h-oKT1fl for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:49:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC6623A68F1 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:49:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D7FB43A25C for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:50:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D17D4400F6 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:50:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6732E34AC1E3 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:50:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DD7E34AC1ED for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:50:00 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.72 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:50:00 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,673,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="81664722" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 19 Jun 2008 09:50:00 -0700 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5JGnxMC016545 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:49:59 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5JGnxld014524 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:49:59 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:49:59 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:49:58 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE66F@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Latest Status of CAPWAP Open Issues Thread-Index: AcjSLIIjAhJ8pIl8Qr6iVw/oTvLhRQ== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 16:49:59.0176 (UTC) FILETIME=[829CB080:01C8D22C] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] Latest Status of CAPWAP Open Issues X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com All, Given the numerous messages dealing with all of issues raised by the IESG, and the few additional ones discovered while fixing them, here is an update on all of the issues, and what I'm waiting for in order to move forward. Issue 61: T20. The original request to change the enum lists to start at zero was not acceptable to some due to the fact that it would be incompatible with version -10 of the draft. Based on an agreement with Dan, I have simply marked zero (0) as reserved. I am waiting for confirmation that this is acceptable Issue 103: Invalid Length Information Message Element. This was raised on the list, and pointed out a valid issue that the length field for this message element was incorrect. It needed to be 20, not 18. I am waiting for confirmation that this is acceptable (although I can't see why anyone would argue against it). Issue 102: Join to Image Data state transition issue on the AC. This is another issue raised on the list, and required that some new text be added to this state transition description on the AC. While there are a number of possible ways to fix this issue, I took the simplest and more direct route to minimize the amount of text. I believe that anyone implementing -10 would have assumed the change I made. Issue Issue 53: T12. Dan raised an issue that he finds the way the message element diagram was constructed was confusing. I have proposed new text, and am waiting for confirmation that he is comfortable with this change. If we opt to go down this route, I would also need to change the WTP Board Data and WTP Descriptor message elements. This does not introduce an compatibility issue with -10, it is simply an editorial change that helps make the text clearer. Issue 65: T24. The IESG raised an issue that they believed that the Image Data and Image Identifier message elements should have a length field. I made this change, but Margaret does not believe this change is really necessary, and since it introduces an incompatibility issue with -10, she would prefer that I back the change out. I am waiting for other folks to provide their opinions. I agree the length is not necessary. Issue 42: T1. This issue stated that any variable length field, or length field, must have a stated maximum value. Many instances of this was addressed via other technical comments from the IESG, but I went through the draft and found a few more, which I combined into this issue. I am waiting for the OK to close this issue. Issue 99: CAPWAP Timers not referencing timers properly. This is a minor change, but while fixing another issue, I found that the CAPWAP timers message element was not referring to the timers in section 4.7. This fix simply added the references. Issue 73: T32. The IESG questioned whether the number of bits in a field of the WTP Operational Statistics is sufficient. Reading the message element, I couldn't really understand what this was trying to do, so I asked the LWAPP developers, and this was an idea that never turned into anything, and do not have any recommendations on how to make the language clearer. Since I have no idea what someone would use this for, I cannot really fix this message element - and would propose deleting it. I am ok leaving it in, but I'd like to see the text cleaned up, and would ask that whomever wants me to leave it in, provide text. Issue 74: T33. This one was a question on whether the statistics/counters in both the WTP Radio Statistics and the WTP Reboot Statistics were intended to wrap around or reset. I modified the text to state it is the former. I am waiting for confirmation that this change is ok. Issue 63: T22. The IESG asked why the length field was set to a specific value. There was obviously some confusion about what information was included, and I have provided a response on what this meant. I am waiting to hear from Dan on how to proceed. I do not believe a fix is required. Issue 41: CAPWAP DTLS Timer Clarification. This is a small change that provides some clarification on the use of timers. This does not introduce an incompatibility issue with -10, as I suspect most people ended up figuring out (the hard way) that the timers should have behaved based on my change. Issue 101: Error in message element figure in 4.6.32. This is a small editorial change to a broken message element diagram. No incompatibility with -10. Issue 100: Editorial issue in 4.6.15. This is a small editorial change to add a separator between an enumerated value and its description. No technical change. Issue 89: E8. I have rejected this issue since the creator of the comment had simply not understood that the use of alpha/numeral/special symbols was only for the AC, not the WTP. I am waiting for Dan's OK. Issue 82: E1. I have changed the text to address the editorial issue raised, and am waiting for Dan's OK. Issue 86: E5. I have changed the text to address the editorial issue raised, and am waiting for Dan's OK. Issue 85: E4. I have changed the text to address the editorial issue raised, and am waiting for Dan's OK. Issue 97: E16. The IESG pointed out that some timers in section 4.7 were not really timers, and needed to move to another place in the spec. Only one of the sections they pointed to needed to move, and I have. I have rejected the rest of the request. I am waiting for Dan's OK. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Thu Jun 19 10:12:09 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C251E3A6829 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:12:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.574 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.574 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.025, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id afi7A-nJ77eB for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:12:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 514433A67FD for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:12:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0442343A264 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:13:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DBB44400FE for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:12:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2908634AC1E3 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:12:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04AED34AC382 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:12:47 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com (nj300815-nj-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.12.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:12:46 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,673,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="124054598" Received: from unknown (HELO nj300815-nj-erheast.avaya.com) ([198.152.6.5]) by nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 19 Jun 2008 13:12:44 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,673,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="214304451" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by nj300815-nj-erheast-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 19 Jun 2008 13:12:44 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:12:42 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE66F@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] Latest Status of CAPWAP Open Issues Thread-Index: AcjSLIIjAhJ8pIl8Qr6iVw/oTvLhRQAACiXw References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE66F@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] Latest Status of CAPWAP Open Issues X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com See in-line. BTW, in all this dialog you need to replace 'the IESG' by 'the AD' (me). This was not yet the IESG review but the AD review. Only after the document passes IETF LC it lands on the table of the IESG. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 7:50 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] Latest Status of CAPWAP Open Issues > > All, > > Given the numerous messages dealing with all of issues raised > by the IESG, and the few additional ones discovered while > fixing them, here is an update on all of the issues, and what > I'm waiting for in order to move forward. > > Issue 61: T20. The original request to change the enum lists > to start at zero was not acceptable to some due to the fact > that it would be incompatible with version -10 of the draft. > Based on an agreement with Dan, I have simply marked zero (0) > as reserved. I am waiting for confirmation that this is acceptable OK with me. > > Issue 103: Invalid Length Information Message Element. This > was raised on the list, and pointed out a valid issue that > the length field for this message element was incorrect. It > needed to be 20, not 18. I am waiting for confirmation that > this is acceptable (although I can't see why anyone would > argue against it). Not raised by me. Ok with whatever consensus the WG reaches. > > Issue 102: Join to Image Data state transition issue on the > AC. This is another issue raised on the list, and required > that some new text be added to this state transition > description on the AC. While there are a number of possible > ways to fix this issue, I took the simplest and more direct > route to minimize the amount of text. I believe that anyone > implementing -10 would have assumed the change I made. Not raised by me. Ok with whatever consensus the WG reaches. > > Issue Issue 53: T12. Dan raised an issue that he finds the > way the message element diagram was constructed was > confusing. I have proposed new text, and am waiting for > confirmation that he is comfortable with this change. If we > opt to go down this route, I would also need to change the > WTP Board Data and WTP Descriptor message elements. This does > not introduce an compatibility issue with -10, it is simply > an editorial change that helps make the text clearer. OK with me. > > Issue 65: T24. The IESG raised an issue that they believed > that the Image Data and Image Identifier message elements > should have a length field. I made this change, but Margaret > does not believe this change is really necessary, and since > it introduces an incompatibility issue with -10, she would > prefer that I back the change out. I am waiting for other > folks to provide their opinions. I agree the length is not necessary. If the WG reaches the consensus that length is not needed I will buy it. I would however suggest to put some text on the lines of what Margaret was explaining in her message. > > Issue 42: T1. This issue stated that any variable length > field, or length field, must have a stated maximum value. > Many instances of this was addressed via other technical > comments from the IESG, but I went through the draft and > found a few more, which I combined into this issue. I am > waiting for the OK to close this issue. Ok with me. > > Issue 99: CAPWAP Timers not referencing timers properly. This > is a minor change, but while fixing another issue, I found > that the CAPWAP timers message element was not referring to > the timers in section 4.7. This fix simply added the references. OK with me. > > Issue 73: T32. The IESG questioned whether the number of bits > in a field of the WTP Operational Statistics is sufficient. > Reading the message element, I couldn't really understand > what this was trying to do, so I asked the LWAPP developers, > and this was an idea that never turned into anything, and do > not have any recommendations on how to make the language > clearer. Since I have no idea what someone would use this > for, I cannot really fix this message element - and would > propose deleting it. I am ok leaving it in, but I'd like to > see the text cleaned up, and would ask that whomever wants me > to leave it in, provide text. I prefer the message to be taken out. > > Issue 74: T33. This one was a question on whether the > statistics/counters in both the WTP Radio Statistics and the > WTP Reboot Statistics were intended to wrap around or reset. > I modified the text to state it is the former. I am waiting > for confirmation that this change is ok. OK, but I also raised here the issue of an estimation of the minimal wrap-up time and I did not see this answered yet. > > Issue 63: T22. The IESG asked why the length field was set to > a specific value. There was obviously some confusion about > what information was included, and I have provided a response > on what this meant. I am waiting to hear from Dan on how to > proceed. I do not believe a fix is required. >From your last explanation I understand now values can be 6 or 8. If this is correct, OK with me. > > Issue 41: CAPWAP DTLS Timer Clarification. This is a small > change that provides some clarification on the use of timers. > This does not introduce an incompatibility issue with -10, as > I suspect most people ended up figuring out (the hard way) > that the timers should have behaved based on my change. Ok with me. > > Issue 101: Error in message element figure in 4.6.32. This is > a small editorial change to a broken message element diagram. > No incompatibility with -10. Ok with me > > Issue 100: Editorial issue in 4.6.15. This is a small > editorial change to add a separator between an enumerated > value and its description. No technical change. Ok with me > > Issue 89: E8. I have rejected this issue since the creator of > the comment had simply not understood that the use of > alpha/numeral/special symbols was only for the AC, not the > WTP. I am waiting for Dan's OK. I cannot find your answer, but I trust you with this one. > > Issue 82: E1. I have changed the text to address the > editorial issue raised, and am waiting for Dan's OK. > > Issue 86: E5. I have changed the text to address the > editorial issue raised, and am waiting for Dan's OK. > > Issue 85: E4. I have changed the text to address the > editorial issue raised, and am waiting for Dan's OK. > > Issue 97: E16. The IESG pointed out that some timers in > section 4.7 were not really timers, and needed to move to > another place in the spec. Only one of the sections they > pointed to needed to move, and I have. I have rejected the > rest of the request. I am waiting for Dan's OK. OK for all these editorial issues. > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Thu Jun 19 10:31:50 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6650F3A696B for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:31:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sg4X0SeGvWZf for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:31:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70E083A67A4 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:31:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC1411C40FCF for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:32:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEC944400E1 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:32:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47B4A3648005 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:32:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1153734AC3A0 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:32:01 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from exchange.tm.thingmagic.com (vpn.thingmagic.com [204.9.221.19]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:31:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.36.0.26] (10.10.8.6) by exchange.tm.thingmagic.com (10.0.0.9) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.278.0; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 13:31:52 -0400 In-Reply-To: References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE66F@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Message-ID: <35285505-7F3A-48B7-8A31-4F28276D6856@thingmagic.com> From: Margaret Wasserman Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 13:31:50 -0400 To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753.1) Cc: capwap@frascone.com Subject: Re: [Capwap] Latest Status of CAPWAP Open Issues X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Hi Pat, On Jun 19, 2008, at 1:12 PM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: >> Issue 73: T32. The IESG questioned whether the number of bits >> in a field of the WTP Operational Statistics is sufficient. >> Reading the message element, I couldn't really understand >> what this was trying to do, so I asked the LWAPP developers, >> and this was an idea that never turned into anything, and do >> not have any recommendations on how to make the language >> clearer. Since I have no idea what someone would use this >> for, I cannot really fix this message element - and would >> propose deleting it. I am ok leaving it in, but I'd like to >> see the text cleaned up, and would ask that whomever wants me >> to leave it in, provide text. > > I prefer the message to be taken out. FWIW, deleting this message element makes the most sense to me, too. Margaret _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Thu Jun 19 10:39:30 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87A3A3A699D for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:39:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MEiR6shZub7q for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:39:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA15E3A68F1 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:39:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A0FD1C40FE9 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:40:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1307C4400F9 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:40:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D23A134AC50E for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:40:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DB2734AC4E9 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:40:10 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from exchange.tm.thingmagic.com (vpn.thingmagic.com [204.9.221.19]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:40:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.36.0.26] (10.10.8.6) by exchange.tm.thingmagic.com (10.0.0.9) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.278.0; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 13:40:08 -0400 In-Reply-To: References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE66F@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Message-ID: <4637E793-3BDC-47D9-BA0B-D03EEF048561@thingmagic.com> From: Margaret Wasserman Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 13:40:06 -0400 To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753.1) Cc: capwap@frascone.com Subject: Re: [Capwap] Latest Status of CAPWAP Open Issues X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Hi Pat, On Jun 19, 2008, at 1:12 PM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: >> Issue 65: T24. The IESG raised an issue that they believed >> that the Image Data and Image Identifier message elements >> should have a length field. I made this change, but Margaret >> does not believe this change is really necessary, and since >> it introduces an incompatibility issue with -10, she would >> prefer that I back the change out. I am waiting for other >> folks to provide their opinions. I agree the length is not necessary. > > If the WG reaches the consensus that length is not needed I will > buy it. > I would however suggest to put some text on the lines of what Margaret > was explaining in her message. You could add something like: "There is no length included in the Image Data and Image Identifier message elements because their lengths can be inferred from the lengths of the received messages." Margaret _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Thu Jun 19 11:48:24 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDF7F3A69D5 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:48:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LRS2wEA1Q+G4 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:48:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D06A3A6992 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:48:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 542BE1C41008 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:49:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E08D34400EE for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:48:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AE5234AC3DB for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:48:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF61034AC3F5 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:48:20 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.72 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:48:10 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,673,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="81717308" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 19 Jun 2008 11:45:33 -0700 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5JIjWAl011802; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:45:32 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5JIjTIs016374; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 18:45:32 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:45:31 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:45:30 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE798@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] Latest Status of CAPWAP Open Issues Thread-Index: AcjSLIIjAhJ8pIl8Qr6iVw/oTvLhRQAACiXwAAOMmbA= References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE66F@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2008 18:45:31.0521 (UTC) FILETIME=[A69C9710:01C8D23C] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Capwap] Latest Status of CAPWAP Open Issues X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Based on Dan's comments, here is the latest: Issues remaining open: Issue 102: Waiting for WG consensus Issue 103: Waiting for WG consensus Issue 53: T12. Dan is OK with the change, so I need to propagate the change to two other message elements. I will take this to a separate thread. Issue 65: T24. Dan is willing to go the way the WG takes. I would propose Margaret's approach, which we will take to a separate thread. Issue 73: T32. Both Dan and Margaret are ok removing the message element. I will take this to another thread. Issue 74: T33. Pat owes Dan a response to the unanswered question. Closed Issues: Issue 61: T20. Closing issue 61. Issue 42: T1. Closing issue 42. Issue 99: CAPWAP Timer References. Closing issue 99. Issue 63: T22. Closing issue 63. Issue 41: CAPWAP Timer Clarification. Closing issue 41. Issue 101: Error in message element figure in 4.6.32. Closing issue 101 Issue 100: Editorial issue in 4.6.15. Closing issue 100 Issue 89: E8. Closing issue 89 Issue 82: E1. Closing issue 82 Issue 86: E5. Closing issue 86 Issue 85: E4. Closing issue 85 Issue 97: E16. Closing issue 97 -----Original Message----- From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 10:13 AM To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap@frascone.com Subject: Re: [Capwap] Latest Status of CAPWAP Open Issues See in-line. BTW, in all this dialog you need to replace 'the IESG' by 'the AD' (me). This was not yet the IESG review but the AD review. Only after the document passes IETF LC it lands on the table of the IESG. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 7:50 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] Latest Status of CAPWAP Open Issues > > All, > > Given the numerous messages dealing with all of issues raised by the > IESG, and the few additional ones discovered while fixing them, here > is an update on all of the issues, and what I'm waiting for in order > to move forward. > > Issue 61: T20. The original request to change the enum lists to start > at zero was not acceptable to some due to the fact that it would be > incompatible with version -10 of the draft. > Based on an agreement with Dan, I have simply marked zero (0) as > reserved. I am waiting for confirmation that this is acceptable OK with me. > > Issue 103: Invalid Length Information Message Element. This was raised > on the list, and pointed out a valid issue that the length field for > this message element was incorrect. It needed to be 20, not 18. I am > waiting for confirmation that this is acceptable (although I can't see > why anyone would argue against it). Not raised by me. Ok with whatever consensus the WG reaches. > > Issue 102: Join to Image Data state transition issue on the AC. This > is another issue raised on the list, and required that some new text > be added to this state transition description on the AC. While there > are a number of possible ways to fix this issue, I took the simplest > and more direct route to minimize the amount of text. I believe that > anyone implementing -10 would have assumed the change I made. Not raised by me. Ok with whatever consensus the WG reaches. > > Issue Issue 53: T12. Dan raised an issue that he finds the way the > message element diagram was constructed was confusing. I have proposed > new text, and am waiting for confirmation that he is comfortable with > this change. If we opt to go down this route, I would also need to > change the WTP Board Data and WTP Descriptor message elements. This > does not introduce an compatibility issue with -10, it is simply an > editorial change that helps make the text clearer. OK with me. > > Issue 65: T24. The IESG raised an issue that they believed that the > Image Data and Image Identifier message elements should have a length > field. I made this change, but Margaret does not believe this change > is really necessary, and since it introduces an incompatibility issue > with -10, she would prefer that I back the change out. I am waiting > for other folks to provide their opinions. I agree the length is not > necessary. If the WG reaches the consensus that length is not needed I will buy it. I would however suggest to put some text on the lines of what Margaret was explaining in her message. > > Issue 42: T1. This issue stated that any variable length field, or > length field, must have a stated maximum value. > Many instances of this was addressed via other technical comments from > the IESG, but I went through the draft and found a few more, which I > combined into this issue. I am waiting for the OK to close this issue. Ok with me. > > Issue 99: CAPWAP Timers not referencing timers properly. This is a > minor change, but while fixing another issue, I found that the CAPWAP > timers message element was not referring to the timers in section 4.7. > This fix simply added the references. OK with me. > > Issue 73: T32. The IESG questioned whether the number of bits in a > field of the WTP Operational Statistics is sufficient. > Reading the message element, I couldn't really understand what this > was trying to do, so I asked the LWAPP developers, and this was an > idea that never turned into anything, and do not have any > recommendations on how to make the language clearer. Since I have no > idea what someone would use this for, I cannot really fix this message > element - and would propose deleting it. I am ok leaving it in, but > I'd like to see the text cleaned up, and would ask that whomever wants > me to leave it in, provide text. I prefer the message to be taken out. > > Issue 74: T33. This one was a question on whether the > statistics/counters in both the WTP Radio Statistics and the WTP > Reboot Statistics were intended to wrap around or reset. > I modified the text to state it is the former. I am waiting for > confirmation that this change is ok. OK, but I also raised here the issue of an estimation of the minimal wrap-up time and I did not see this answered yet. > > Issue 63: T22. The IESG asked why the length field was set to a > specific value. There was obviously some confusion about what > information was included, and I have provided a response on what this > meant. I am waiting to hear from Dan on how to proceed. I do not > believe a fix is required. >From your last explanation I understand now values can be 6 or 8. If this is correct, OK with me. > > Issue 41: CAPWAP DTLS Timer Clarification. This is a small change that > provides some clarification on the use of timers. > This does not introduce an incompatibility issue with -10, as I > suspect most people ended up figuring out (the hard way) that the > timers should have behaved based on my change. Ok with me. > > Issue 101: Error in message element figure in 4.6.32. This is a small > editorial change to a broken message element diagram. > No incompatibility with -10. Ok with me > > Issue 100: Editorial issue in 4.6.15. This is a small editorial change > to add a separator between an enumerated value and its description. No > technical change. Ok with me > > Issue 89: E8. I have rejected this issue since the creator of the > comment had simply not understood that the use of > alpha/numeral/special symbols was only for the AC, not the WTP. I am > waiting for Dan's OK. I cannot find your answer, but I trust you with this one. > > Issue 82: E1. I have changed the text to address the editorial issue > raised, and am waiting for Dan's OK. > > Issue 86: E5. I have changed the text to address the editorial issue > raised, and am waiting for Dan's OK. > > Issue 85: E4. I have changed the text to address the editorial issue > raised, and am waiting for Dan's OK. > > Issue 97: E16. The IESG pointed out that some timers in section 4.7 > were not really timers, and needed to move to another place in the > spec. Only one of the sections they pointed to needed to move, and I > have. I have rejected the rest of the request. I am waiting for Dan's > OK. OK for all these editorial issues. > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Thu Jun 19 11:50:45 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEE263A69C9 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:50:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PddfiDjItRpu for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:50:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E0A43A6992 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:50:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFF781C40F35 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:51:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72AFD4400EE for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:51:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BDB834AC1FA for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:51:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFF1F34AC1F9 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:51:25 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from py-out-1112.google.com (py-out-1112.google.com [64.233.166.183]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:51:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id u52so393193pyb.11 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:51:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.181.1 with SMTP id d1mr3119757waf.185.1213901484865; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:51:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.156.14 with HTTP; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:51:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:51:24 -0700 From: "Yong Zhang" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE528@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE528@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> Cc: capwap@frascone.com Subject: Re: [Capwap] questions ondraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-specification-10.txt X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Thanks for the response. I also saw the following issues: 1. 4.7.10 MaxFailedDTLSSessionRetry is not a timer. Should it be put in 4.8? 2. 4.8.2/3/4 are running time counters. They are not configurable. Should they be removed from here? 3. 4.8.8 ReportInterval. Is it a CAPWAP timer? Should it be in 4.7? This one seems not defined in the state machine transition. Is this for 4.7.14 StatisticsTimer? 4. 4.8.9 RetransmitCount. I think it should be called MaxRetransmitCount. And "This is a monotonically increasing counter" need to be removed. Thanks! Yong On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 10:32 PM, Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) wrote: > Thanks for raising those two issues. They were real, and I have created > two issues to track them 102 and 103. I have created two separate > threads to monitor these two issues. > > I will publish the updated spec once we are done dealing with the issues > raised during the IESG review. > > PatC > > -----Original Message----- > From: Yong Zhang [mailto:yozhang@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 6:32 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] questions > ondraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-specification-10.txt > > Hi, > > I have a question on the state machine in the AC side: > > In page 24/25. it is said: > > AC: join -> image data happens when the AC receives the image data > request from WTP. > AC: join -> configure happens immediately after the AC transmits the > join resp. > > Does the WTP only send the image data request after it receives the join > resp? If so, the AC will not be able to go into the image data state. > Did I miss something here? > > Also, Page 76, 4.6.29 image information. The length should be 20 instead > of 18, right? > > Where can I find an latest version of this draft? Since I joined the > email list last week, I saw a lot of emails on the spec. changes. > > Thanks! > > Yong > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Thu Jun 19 17:07:03 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03CA33A690F for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:07:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5GltW+vceJx7 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:07:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6293B3A68A9 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:07:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8633E1C41008 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:07:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E71C44400F2 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:06:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C0BB34AC39C for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:06:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F74A34AC38F for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:06:48 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.117 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:06:48 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,675,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="115808561" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 19 Jun 2008 17:06:35 -0700 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5K06ZmG022834; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:06:35 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5K06ZuX005604; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:06:35 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:06:35 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:06:33 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE9BC@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE51A@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T12 Thread-Index: AcjPELu416c4qMlBRmmB9tpGnVSLxQAtoMNwAAVS24AAewPvAAAoI4TA References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98146@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE51A@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Jun 2008 00:06:35.0469 (UTC) FILETIME=[80D1C7D0:01C8D269] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T12 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Given that Dan was comfortable with proposed change to the AC Descriptor message element. I am proposing to make the same change to two other similar message elements in the base protocol. This does not change the packet format in any way, and therefore does not introduce any compatibility issues. I think it simply provides more clarity on the format and expected contents. 4.6.40. WTP Board Data The WTP Board Data message element is sent by the WTP to the AC and contains information about the hardware present. 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Vendor Identifier | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Board Data Sub-Element... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Type: 40 for WTP Board Data Length: >=14 Vendor Identifier: A 32-bit value containing the IANA assigned "SMI Network Management Private Enterprise Codes" Board Data Sub-Element: The WTP Board Data message element contains multiple Board Data sub-elements, some of which are mandatory and some are optional, as described below. The Board Data sub-element has the following format: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Vendor Identifier | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Board Data Type | Board Data Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Board Data Value... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Board Data Type: The Board Data Type field identifies the data being encoded. The CAPWAP protocol defines the following values, and each of these types identify whether their presence is mandatory or optional: 0 - WTP Model Number: The WTP Model Number MUST be included in the WTP Board Data message element. 1 - WTP Serial Number: The WTP Serial Number MUST be included in the WTP Board Data message element. 2 - Board ID: A hardware identifier, which MAY be included in the WTP Board Data message element. 3 - Board Revision A revision number of the board, which MAY be included in the WTP Board Data message element. 4 - Base MAC Address The WTP's Base MAC Address, which MAY be assigned to the primary Ethernet interface. Board Data Length: The length of the data in the Board Data Value field, whose length MUST NOT exceed 1024 octets. Board Data Value: The data associated with the Board Data Type field for this Board Data sub-element. 4.6.41. WTP Descriptor The WTP Descriptor message element is used by a WTP to communicate its current hardware and software (firmware) configuration. The value contains the following fields. 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Max Radios | Radios in use | Encryption Capabilities | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Descriptor Sub-Element... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Type: 41 for WTP Descriptor Length: >= 31 Max Radios: An 8-bit value representing the number of radios (where each radio is identified via the Radio ID field) supported by the WTP. Radios in use: An 8-bit value representing the number of radios in use in the WTP. Encryption Capabilities: This 16-bit field is used by the WTP to communicate its capabilities to the AC. A WTP that does not have any encryption capabilities sets this field to zero (0). Refer to the specific wireless binding for further specification of the Encryption Capabilities field. Descriptor Sub-Element: The WTP Descriptor message element contains multiple Descriptor sub-elements, some of which are mandatory and some are optional, as described below. The Descriptor sub-element has the following format: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Descriptor Vendor Identifier | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Descriptor Type | Descriptor Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Descriptor Data... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Descriptor Vendor Identifier: A 32-bit value containing the IANA assigned "SMI Network Management Private Enterprise Codes". Descriptor Type: The Descriptor Type field identifies the data being encoded. The CAPWAP protocol defines the following values, and each of these types identify whether their presence is mandatory or optional: 0 - Hardware Version: The WTP hardware version number MUST be present. 1 - Active Software Version: The WTP running software version number MUST be present. 2 - Boot Version: The WTP boot loader version number MUST be present. 3 - Other Software Version: The WTP non-running software (firmware) version number MAY be present. This type is used to communicate alternate software versions that are available on the WTP's non-volatile storage. Descriptor Length: Length of vendor specific encoding of Descriptor Data field, whose length MUST NOT exceed 1024 octets. Descriptor Data: Vendor specific data of WTP information encoded in the UTF-8 format. PatC -----Original Message----- From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 10:06 PM To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); capwap@frascone.com Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T12 I think 4/5 is odd, personally. However, I think I have a better idea, and one that I think will be MUCH clearer. In order to help express the idea, I will include the whole text for the AC Descriptor section. If this format works for you, I will replicate it in another two areas in the spec that I had updated due to another IESG review comment. 4.6.1. AC Descriptor The AC Descriptor message element is used by the AC to communicate its current state. The value contains the following fields. 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Stations | Limit | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Active WTPs | Max WTPs | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Security | R-MAC Field | Reserved1 | DTLS Policy | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AC Information... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Type: 1 for AC Descriptor Length: >= 12 Stations: The number of stations currently served by the AC Limit: The maximum number of stations supported by the AC Active WTPs: The number of WTPs currently attached to the AC Max WTPs: The maximum number of WTPs supported by the AC Security: A 8 bit mask specifying the authentication credential type supported by the AC. The following values are supported (see Section 2.4.4): 1 - X.509 Certificate Based 2 - Pre-Shared Secret R-MAC Field: The AC supports the optional Radio MAC Address field in the CAPWAP transport Header (see Section 4.3). Reserved: A set of reserved bits for future use. All implementations complying with this protocol MUST set to zero any bits that are reserved in the version of the protocol supported by that implementation. Receivers MUST ignore all bits not defined for the version of the protocol they support. DTLS Policy: The AC communicates its policy on the use of DTLS for the CAPWAP data channel. The AC MAY communicate more than one supported option, represented by the bit field below. The WTP MUST abide by one of the options communicated by AC. The following bit field values are supported: 1 - Clear Text Data Channel Supported 2 - DTLS Enabled Data Channel Supported AC Information: The AC Descriptor message element contains multiple AC Information sub-elements, and defines two sub-types, each of which MUST be present. The AC Information sub-element has the following format: 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AC Information Vendor Identifier | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AC Information Type | AC Information Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | AC Information Data... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ AC Information Vendor Identifier: A 32-bit value containing the IANA assigned "SMI Network Management Private Enterprise Codes" AC Information Type: Vendor specific encoding of AC information. The following values are supported. Both the Hardware and Software Version sub-elements MUST be included in the AC Descriptor message element. 4 - Hardware Version: The AC's hardware version number. 5 - Software Version: The AC's Software (firmware) version number. AC Information Length: Length of vendor specific encoding of AC information, with a maximum size of 1024. AC Information Data: Vendor specific encoding of AC information. -----Original Message----- From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 11:14 AM To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap@frascone.com Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T12 I won't fight this to death but I still find it confusing. Writhing 4 in a field which can be either 4 or 5 may confuse other as well. What about 4/5? Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 6:40 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T12 > > All, > > The following is the IESG Comment Review: > > T12 - Section 4.6.1 - in the AC Descriptor protocol diagram delete > =4 from the Type > filed (it can be 4 or 5 as I understand) > > Actually, the reason why this is part of the diagram is because both 4 > and 5 MUST be included (as described in the field description). So in > order to make this much clearer, we have included this in the diagram. > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Thu Jun 19 17:15:45 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCF2D3A688F for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:15:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OWmEWWPviMvy for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:15:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 993EF3A6840 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:15:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F41C243A223 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:15:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 525284400F9 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:15:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC10A34AC379 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:15:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 858F534AC42E for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:15:25 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.72 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:15:25 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,675,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="81828460" Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 19 Jun 2008 17:15:20 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5K0FJN2005054; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:15:19 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5K0FIP1019389; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:15:19 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:15:18 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:15:16 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE9C3@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE4E8@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] IESG Review Comment T24 Thread-Index: AcjQmwuGNTbm0Ch9QsWkk3oGz7qkwQBEnRAQAC87vcA= References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98129@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com><27CB5D32-493A-474F-942E-A18B9C72E123@thingmagic.com> <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE4E8@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Margaret Wasserman" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Jun 2008 00:15:18.0706 (UTC) FILETIME=[B8B16920:01C8D26A] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Cc: capwap@frascone.com Subject: Re: [Capwap] IESG Review Comment T24 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com All, Having looked at this closer, the solution is actually really simple and follows on Margaret's proposal. I am including here the new proposed text, which maintains the original format in -10. The added text is in the Data field description. 4.6.27. Image Data The Image Data message element is present in the Image Data Request message sent by the AC and contains the following fields. 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Data Type | Data .... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Type: 27 for Image Data Length: >= 1 Opcode: An 8-bit value representing the transfer opcode. The following enumerated values are supported: 1 - Image data is included 2 - Last Image Data Block is included (EOF) 5 - An error occurred. Transfer is aborted Data: The Image Data field contains up to 1024 characters, and its length is inferred from this message element's length field. If the block being sent is the last one, the Opcode is set to 2. The AC MAY opt to abort the data transfer by setting the Opcode to 5. When the Opcode is 5, the Value field has a zero length. 4.6.28. Image Identifier The Image Identifier message element is sent by the AC to the WTP and is used to indicate the expected active software version that is to be run on the WTP. The value is a variable length UTF-8 encoded string, which is NOT zero terminated. 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Vendor Identifier | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Data... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Type: 28 for Image Identifier Length: >= 1 Data Length: Length of data field, with a maximum size of 65535. Data: A variable length UTF-8 encoded string containing the firmware identifier to be run on the WTP, whose length MUST NOT exceed 1024 octets. The length of this field is inferred from this message element's length field. PatC -----Original Message----- From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 6:41 PM To: Margaret Wasserman Cc: capwap@frascone.com Subject: Re: [Capwap] IESG Review Comment T24 So I frankly don't care, but I was trying to address the issue raised by the IESG. Should I follow the desire of the chair or the AD? PatC -----Original Message----- From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:margaret@thingmagic.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 9:56 AM To: Margaret Wasserman Cc: capwap@frascone.com Subject: Re: [Capwap] IESG Review Comment T24 I just spoke with Dan Romascanu on the phone (for a previously scheduled CAPWAP status call), and I realized that my message about this issue may have been unnecessarily terse... It is my understanding that we will always know the length of the packet received at the CAPWAP layer, because it will be passed up to us from the lower layer. Effectively, we will get a buffer and a data length from the lower layer. I don't know of any system that wouldn't provide that information. If we add a CAPWAP data length, we must always compare the CAPWAP data length to the buffer length we received. This comparison could theoretically result in one of three answers: (1) The CAPWAP data length indicates that the data ends at the end of the lower-layer buffer. This is the expected case, and the only case supported by the -10 version of the spec. In this case the CAPWAP data length adds no value. (2) The CAPWAP data length indicates that the data ends before the end of the lower-layer buffer. I don't believe that this should ever happen because the other side should have passed its the correct amount of CAPWAP data (and only that data) through DTLS and that's what we should have recieved. I'm not sure whether we should accept the data in this case or return an error. (3) The CAPWAP data length indicates that the data ends after the end of the lower-layer buffer. In this case, we definitely have to return an error, because we don't want to read off of the end of the lower layer buffer. So, having a CAPWAP data length adds processing (to do this comparison), and I don't see that it adds any value. It also breaks compatibility with previous versions of CAPWAP (such as -10), so I don't personally think we should add it. Margaret On Jun 17, 2008, at 11:51 AM, Margaret Wasserman wrote: > > I'm personally not wild about changing the packet formats at this > point, but there does appear to be a technical justification for this > change... > > Are there actually systems on which you wouldn't know the packet size > at this layer, though? Or is this just a theoretical technical > justification? > > Margaret > > > > On Jun 16, 2008, at 11:35 AM, Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) wrote: > >> All, >> >> Here is the IESG Review Comment: >> >> T24 - Sections 4.6.27, 4.6.28 - should not these two messages >> include length of the >> Value fields? >> >> Originally, this was not included, because it could be inferred. >> However, I can imagine a software architecture where the packet size >> is not known when the message elements are parsed. So I have added >> them: >> >> >> 4.6.27. Image Data >> [...] >> >> 0 1 2 3 >> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >> | Data Type | Data Length | Data .... >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >> [...] >> >> Data: Length of data field, with a maximum size of 1024. >> >> Data: The Image Data field contains up to 1024 characters. If >> the >> block being sent is the last one, the Opcode is set to 2. >> The AC >> MAY opt to abort the data transfer by setting the Opcode to 5. >> When the Opcode is 5, the Value field has a zero length. >> >> 4.6.28. Image Identifier >> [...] >> 0 1 2 3 >> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >> | Vendor Identifier | >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >> | Value Length | Data... >> >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ >> [...] >> >> Data: Length of data field, with a maximum size of 65535. >> >> Data: A variable length UTF-8 encoded string containing the >> firmware >> identifier to be run on the WTP. >> >> >> PatC >> _________________________________________________________________ >> To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: >> http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap >> >> Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Thu Jun 19 17:17:57 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4C393A68AA for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:17:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.300, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8rVjIp0sJkBi for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:17:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 267013A6840 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:17:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AB0143A254 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:17:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DA984400F9 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:17:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13FB034AC3F5 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:17:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 866E534AC3F1 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:17:48 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.117 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:17:48 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,675,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="115813256" Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 19 Jun 2008 17:17:48 -0700 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5K0HmpV004152 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:17:48 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5K0HmTs013987 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:17:48 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:17:47 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:17:46 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE9C6@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: NEED WG Consensus: Issue 73: IESG Review Comment T32 Thread-Index: AcjSaxC7o6rFAWFpQmyUZeT/fNS9MQ== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Jun 2008 00:17:48.0138 (UTC) FILETIME=[11C2ECA0:01C8D26B] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] NEED WG Consensus: Issue 73: IESG Review Comment T32 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com All, I want to make sure that no one objects to the removal of the WTP Operational Statistics message element. I cannot for the life of me figure out what it does, nor can the folks that implemented our code. So far both Margaret and Dan are OK with the proposal. In this change, I would not renumber any of the message elements to limit broader impact. We would leave the message element unused. Thanks, PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Fri Jun 20 00:05:29 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E95BD3A695A for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:05:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Cb+gOgCeEyCG for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:05:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12E9B3A6943 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:05:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5B504301C2 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:05:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27577440109 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:04:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A54DA364800D for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:04:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A35733648009 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:04:40 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Sender first seen 3 days 13:01:03 ago / dynamic or unknown reverse DNS) Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:04:40 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,678,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="111904154" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 20 Jun 2008 03:04:37 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,678,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="221351998" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 20 Jun 2008 03:04:36 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 09:04:35 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE9C6@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] NEED WG Consensus: Issue 73: IESG Review Comment T32 Thread-Index: AcjSaxC7o6rFAWFpQmyUZeT/fNS9MQAOLgcw References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE9C6@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] NEED WG Consensus: Issue 73: IESG Review Comment T32 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 3:18 AM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] NEED WG Consensus: Issue 73: IESG Review Comment T32 > > All, > > I want to make sure that no one objects to the removal of the > WTP Operational Statistics message element. I cannot for the > life of me figure out what it does, nor can the folks that > implemented our code. > So far both Margaret and Dan are OK with the proposal. > > In this change, I would not renumber any of the message > elements to limit broader impact. We would leave the message > element unused. > > Thanks, > > PatC Best is probably to mention in the spec that it is unused and reserved. Dan _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Fri Jun 20 00:06:22 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E3BC3A694D for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:06:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gOD63f9vjr7r for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:06:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC69F3A68D0 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:06:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3B65430295 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:06:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54134440108 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:05:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2496B3648010 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:05:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E522364800E for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:05:44 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:05:44 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,678,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="132040593" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 20 Jun 2008 03:05:43 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,678,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="221352492" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 20 Jun 2008 03:05:42 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 09:05:40 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE9C3@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] IESG Review Comment T24 Thread-Index: AcjQmwuGNTbm0Ch9QsWkk3oGz7qkwQBEnRAQAC87vcAADmIGIA== References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98129@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com><27CB5D32-493A-474F-942E-A18B9C72E123@thingmagic.com><4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE4E8@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE9C3@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , "Margaret Wasserman" Cc: capwap@frascone.com Subject: Re: [Capwap] IESG Review Comment T24 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 3:15 AM > To: Margaret Wasserman > Cc: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: Re: [Capwap] IESG Review Comment T24 > > All, > > Having looked at this closer, the solution is actually really > simple and follows on Margaret's proposal. I am including > here the new proposed text, which maintains the original > format in -10. The added text is in the Data field description. > > > 4.6.27. Image Data > > The Image Data message element is present in the Image Data Request > message sent by the AC and contains the following fields. > > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Data Type | Data .... > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > Type: 27 for Image Data > > Length: >= 1 > > Opcode: An 8-bit value representing the transfer opcode. The > following enumerated values are supported: > > 1 - Image data is included > > 2 - Last Image Data Block is included (EOF) > > 5 - An error occurred. Transfer is aborted > > Data: The Image Data field contains up to 1024 > characters, and its > length is inferred from this message element's length field. If > the block being sent is the last one, the Opcode is set > to 2. The > AC MAY opt to abort the data transfer by setting the > Opcode to 5. > When the Opcode is 5, the Value field has a zero length. > > 4.6.28. Image Identifier > > The Image Identifier message element is sent by the AC to > the WTP and > is used to indicate the expected active software version that is to > be run on the WTP. The value is a variable length UTF-8 encoded > string, which is NOT zero terminated. > > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Vendor Identifier | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Data... > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > Type: 28 for Image Identifier > > Length: >= 1 > > Data Length: Length of data field, with a maximum size of 65535. > > Data: A variable length UTF-8 encoded string containing the > firmware identifier to be run on the WTP, whose length MUST NOT > exceed 1024 octets. The length of this field is inferred from > this message element's length field. > > > PatC > > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 6:41 PM > To: Margaret Wasserman > Cc: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: Re: [Capwap] IESG Review Comment T24 > > So I frankly don't care, but I was trying to address the > issue raised by the IESG. Should I follow the desire of the > chair or the AD? > > PatC > > -----Original Message----- > From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:margaret@thingmagic.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 9:56 AM > To: Margaret Wasserman > Cc: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: Re: [Capwap] IESG Review Comment T24 > > > I just spoke with Dan Romascanu on the phone (for a > previously scheduled CAPWAP status call), and I realized that > my message about this issue may have been unnecessarily terse... > > It is my understanding that we will always know the length of > the packet received at the CAPWAP layer, because it will be > passed up to us from the lower layer. Effectively, we will > get a buffer and a data length from the lower layer. I don't > know of any system that wouldn't provide that information. > > If we add a CAPWAP data length, we must always compare the > CAPWAP data length to the buffer length we received. This > comparison could theoretically result in one of three answers: > > (1) The CAPWAP data length indicates that the data ends at > the end of the lower-layer buffer. This is the expected > case, and the only case supported by the -10 version of the > spec. In this case the CAPWAP data length adds no value. > > (2) The CAPWAP data length indicates that the data ends > before the end of the lower-layer buffer. I don't believe > that this should ever happen because the other side should > have passed its the correct amount of CAPWAP data (and only > that data) through DTLS and that's what we should have > recieved. I'm not sure whether we should accept the data in > this case or return an error. > > (3) The CAPWAP data length indicates that the data ends after > the end of the lower-layer buffer. In this case, we > definitely have to return an error, because we don't want to > read off of the end of the lower layer buffer. > > So, having a CAPWAP data length adds processing (to do this > comparison), and I don't see that it adds any value. It also > breaks compatibility with previous versions of CAPWAP (such > as -10), so I don't personally think we should add it. > > Margaret > > > > On Jun 17, 2008, at 11:51 AM, Margaret Wasserman wrote: > > > > > I'm personally not wild about changing the packet formats at this > > point, but there does appear to be a technical > justification for this > > change... > > > > Are there actually systems on which you wouldn't know the > packet size > > at this layer, though? Or is this just a theoretical technical > > justification? > > > > Margaret > > > > > > > > On Jun 16, 2008, at 11:35 AM, Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) wrote: > > > >> All, > >> > >> Here is the IESG Review Comment: > >> > >> T24 - Sections 4.6.27, 4.6.28 - should not these two messages > >> include length of the > >> Value fields? > >> > >> Originally, this was not included, because it could be inferred. > >> However, I can imagine a software architecture where the > packet size > >> is not known when the message elements are parsed. So I have added > >> them: > >> > >> > >> 4.6.27. Image Data > >> [...] > >> > >> 0 1 2 3 > >> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > >> | Data Type | Data Length | Data .... > >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > >> [...] > >> > >> Data: Length of data field, with a maximum size of 1024. > >> > >> Data: The Image Data field contains up to 1024 characters. If > >> the > >> block being sent is the last one, the Opcode is set to 2. > >> The AC > >> MAY opt to abort the data transfer by setting the > Opcode to 5. > >> When the Opcode is 5, the Value field has a zero length. > >> > >> 4.6.28. Image Identifier > >> [...] > >> 0 1 2 3 > >> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > >> | Vendor Identifier | > >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > >> | Value Length | Data... > >> > >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > >> [...] > >> > >> Data: Length of data field, with a maximum size of 65535. > >> > >> Data: A variable length UTF-8 encoded string containing the > >> firmware > >> identifier to be run on the WTP. > >> > >> > >> PatC > >> _________________________________________________________________ > >> To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > >> http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > >> > >> Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Fri Jun 20 00:07:27 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 281103A695A for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:07:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zklk71re0avm for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:07:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBB613A68D0 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:07:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCB4143030E for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:07:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12B5D440107 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:06:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E50B9364800D for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:06:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56C2B3648008 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:06:36 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com (nj300815-nj-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.12.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:06:36 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,678,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="124127023" Received: from unknown (HELO nj300815-nj-erheast.avaya.com) ([198.152.6.5]) by nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 20 Jun 2008 03:06:35 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,678,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="214612340" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by nj300815-nj-erheast-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 20 Jun 2008 03:06:34 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 09:06:33 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE9BC@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T12 Thread-Index: AcjPELu416c4qMlBRmmB9tpGnVSLxQAtoMNwAAVS24AAewPvAAAoI4TAAA6/H4A= References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98146@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE51A@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE9BC@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T12 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 3:07 AM > To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); Romascanu, Dan (Dan); capwap@frascone.com > Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T12 > > Given that Dan was comfortable with proposed change to the AC > Descriptor message element. I am proposing to make the same > change to two other similar message elements in the base > protocol. This does not change the packet format in any way, > and therefore does not introduce any compatibility issues. I > think it simply provides more clarity on the format and > expected contents. > > > 4.6.40. WTP Board Data > > The WTP Board Data message element is sent by the WTP to the AC and > contains information about the hardware present. > > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Vendor Identifier | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Board Data Sub-Element... > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > > Type: 40 for WTP Board Data > > Length: >=14 > > Vendor Identifier: A 32-bit value containing the IANA > assigned "SMI > Network Management Private Enterprise Codes" > > Board Data Sub-Element: The WTP Board Data message > element contains > multiple Board Data sub-elements, some of which are > mandatory and > some are optional, as described below. The Board Data > sub-element > has the following format: > > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Vendor Identifier | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Board Data Type | Board Data Length | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Board Data Value... > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > Board Data Type: The Board Data Type field identifies the data > being encoded. The CAPWAP protocol defines the following > values, and each of these types identify whether > their presence > is mandatory or optional: > > 0 - WTP Model Number: The WTP Model Number MUST be included > in the WTP Board Data message element. > > 1 - WTP Serial Number: The WTP Serial Number MUST > be included > in the WTP Board Data message element. > > 2 - Board ID: A hardware identifier, which MAY be > included in > the WTP Board Data message element. > > 3 - Board Revision A revision number of the board, > which MAY > be included in the WTP Board Data message element. > > 4 - Base MAC Address The WTP's Base MAC Address, > which MAY be > assigned to the primary Ethernet interface. > > Board Data Length: The length of the data in the Board Data > Value field, whose length MUST NOT exceed 1024 octets. > > Board Data Value: The data associated with the Board Data Type > field for this Board Data sub-element. > > 4.6.41. WTP Descriptor > > The WTP Descriptor message element is used by a WTP to communicate > its current hardware and software (firmware) configuration. The > value contains the following fields. > > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Max Radios | Radios in use | Encryption Capabilities | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Descriptor Sub-Element... > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > > Type: 41 for WTP Descriptor > > Length: >= 31 > > Max Radios: An 8-bit value representing the number of > radios (where > each radio is identified via the Radio ID field) > supported by the > WTP. > > Radios in use: An 8-bit value representing the number of > radios in > use in the WTP. > > Encryption Capabilities: This 16-bit field is used by the WTP to > communicate its capabilities to the AC. A WTP that > does not have > any encryption capabilities sets this field to zero > (0). Refer to > the specific wireless binding for further specification of the > Encryption Capabilities field. > > Descriptor Sub-Element: The WTP Descriptor message > element contains > multiple Descriptor sub-elements, some of which are > mandatory and > some are optional, as described below. The Descriptor > sub-element > has the following format: > > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Descriptor Vendor Identifier | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Descriptor Type | Descriptor Length | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Descriptor Data... > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > Descriptor Vendor Identifier: A 32-bit value > containing the IANA > assigned "SMI Network Management Private Enterprise Codes". > > Descriptor Type: The Descriptor Type field identifies the data > being encoded. The CAPWAP protocol defines the following > values, and each of these types identify whether > their presence > is mandatory or optional: > > 0 - Hardware Version: The WTP hardware version > number MUST be > present. > > 1 - Active Software Version: The WTP running > software version > number MUST be present. > > 2 - Boot Version: The WTP boot loader version > number MUST be > present. > > 3 - Other Software Version: The WTP non-running software > (firmware) version number MAY be present. This > type is used > to communicate alternate software versions that are > available on the WTP's non-volatile storage. > > Descriptor Length: Length of vendor specific encoding of > Descriptor Data field, whose length MUST NOT exceed 1024 > octets. > > Descriptor Data: Vendor specific data of WTP > information encoded > in the UTF-8 format. > > > PatC > > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 10:06 PM > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); capwap@frascone.com > Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T12 > > I think 4/5 is odd, personally. However, I think I have a > better idea, and one that I think will be MUCH clearer. In > order to help express the idea, I will include the whole text > for the AC Descriptor section. If this format works for you, > I will replicate it in another two areas in the spec that I > had updated due to another IESG review comment. > > > 4.6.1. AC Descriptor > > The AC Descriptor message element is used by the AC to communicate > its current state. The value contains the following fields. > > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Stations | Limit | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Active WTPs | Max WTPs | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Security | R-MAC Field | Reserved1 | DTLS Policy | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | AC Information... > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > Type: 1 for AC Descriptor > > Length: >= 12 > > Stations: The number of stations currently served by the AC > > Limit: The maximum number of stations supported by the AC > > Active WTPs: The number of WTPs currently attached to the AC > > Max WTPs: The maximum number of WTPs supported by the AC > > Security: A 8 bit mask specifying the authentication credential > type supported by the AC. The following values are > supported (see > Section 2.4.4): > > 1 - X.509 Certificate Based > > 2 - Pre-Shared Secret > > R-MAC Field: The AC supports the optional Radio MAC Address field > in the CAPWAP transport Header (see Section 4.3). > > Reserved: A set of reserved bits for future use. All > implementations complying with this protocol MUST set > to zero any > bits that are reserved in the version of the protocol > supported by > that implementation. Receivers MUST ignore all bits not defined > for the version of the protocol they support. > > DTLS Policy: The AC communicates its policy on the use > of DTLS for > the CAPWAP data channel. The AC MAY communicate more than one > supported option, represented by the bit field below. The WTP > MUST abide by one of the options communicated by AC. The > following bit field values are supported: > > 1 - Clear Text Data Channel Supported > > 2 - DTLS Enabled Data Channel Supported > > AC Information: The AC Descriptor message element > contains multiple > AC Information sub-elements, and defines two sub-types, each of > which MUST be present. The AC Information sub-element has the > following format: > > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | AC Information Vendor Identifier | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | AC Information Type | AC Information Length | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | AC Information Data... > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > AC Information Vendor Identifier: A 32-bit value > containing the > IANA assigned "SMI Network Management Private > Enterprise Codes" > > AC Information Type: Vendor specific encoding of AC > information. > The following values are supported. Both the Hardware and > Software Version sub-elements MUST be included in the AC > Descriptor message element. > > 4 - Hardware Version: The AC's hardware version number. > > 5 - Software Version: The AC's Software (firmware) version > number. > > AC Information Length: Length of vendor specific > encoding of AC > information, with a maximum size of 1024. > > AC Information Data: Vendor specific encoding of AC > information. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 11:14 AM > To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap@frascone.com > Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T12 > > I won't fight this to death but I still find it confusing. > Writhing 4 in a field which can be either 4 or 5 may confuse > other as well. What about 4/5? > > Dan > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 6:40 PM > > To: capwap@frascone.com > > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T12 > > > > All, > > > > The following is the IESG Comment Review: > > > > T12 - Section 4.6.1 - in the AC Descriptor protocol > diagram delete > > =4 from the Type > > filed (it can be 4 or 5 as I understand) > > > > Actually, the reason why this is part of the diagram is > because both 4 > > > and 5 MUST be included (as described in the field > description). So in > > order to make this much clearer, we have included this in > the diagram. > > > > PatC > > _________________________________________________________________ > > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > > > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Fri Jun 20 09:53:45 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEB793A698B for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 09:53:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vAp257xH+Pku for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 09:53:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D7793A68D9 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 09:53:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AA991C40F73 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 09:53:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35918440102 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 09:53:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F55734AC3BB for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 09:53:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9A5C34AC3D3 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 09:53:33 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from rn-out-0910.google.com (rn-out-0910.google.com [64.233.170.190]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 09:53:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rn-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id j71so226664rne.12 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 09:53:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.48.14 with SMTP id v14mr1511541wfv.14.1213980812558; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 09:53:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.143.3.6 with HTTP; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 09:53:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 09:53:32 -0700 From: "Yong Zhang" To: capwap@frascone.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Subject: [Capwap] WaitDTLS/WaitJoin timers in draft-ietf-capwap-protocol-specification-10.txt X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com WaitDTLS by its name should be DTLS session setup related, but this spec. (6.1/2) requires it deactivated after the Join Req/Resp are received. WaitJoin seems no use in this case?? Also the WaitDTLS timer is started earlier than WaitJoin timer, however, the default value for these two timers (4.7.15/16) are all 60s. if WaitJoin has some other use, it need to have a less value than WaitDTLS to work. Yong _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Fri Jun 20 10:21:17 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F12F3A69CF for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:21:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.732 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.732 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.867, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GyL1kzrWCh87 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:21:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CF463A63EC for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:21:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8299043A520 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:21:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C721440112 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:21:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E898034AC397 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:21:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77C1F34AC398 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:21:02 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.72 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:21:02 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,680,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="82113799" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Jun 2008 10:20:53 -0700 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5KHKrpX026757; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:20:53 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5KHKqWq010363; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 17:20:52 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:20:52 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:20:52 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205F5CD9D@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] IESG Review Comment T24 Thread-Index: AcjQmwuGNTbm0Ch9QsWkk3oGz7qkwQBEnRAQAC87vcAADmIGIAAVf1iA References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98129@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com><27CB5D32-493A-474F-942E-A18B9C72E123@thingmagic.com><4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE4E8@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE9C3@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , "Margaret Wasserman" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Jun 2008 17:20:52.0787 (UTC) FILETIME=[FDDD0830:01C8D2F9] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Cc: capwap@frascone.com Subject: Re: [Capwap] IESG Review Comment T24 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Great - closing issue 65 with no backward compatibility issues. PatC -----Original Message----- From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 12:06 AM To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); Margaret Wasserman Cc: capwap@frascone.com Subject: RE: [Capwap] IESG Review Comment T24 OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 3:15 AM > To: Margaret Wasserman > Cc: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: Re: [Capwap] IESG Review Comment T24 > > All, > > Having looked at this closer, the solution is actually really simple > and follows on Margaret's proposal. I am including here the new > proposed text, which maintains the original format in -10. The added > text is in the Data field description. > > > 4.6.27. Image Data > > The Image Data message element is present in the Image Data Request > message sent by the AC and contains the following fields. > > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Data Type | Data .... > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > Type: 27 for Image Data > > Length: >= 1 > > Opcode: An 8-bit value representing the transfer opcode. The > following enumerated values are supported: > > 1 - Image data is included > > 2 - Last Image Data Block is included (EOF) > > 5 - An error occurred. Transfer is aborted > > Data: The Image Data field contains up to 1024 > characters, and its > length is inferred from this message element's length field. If > the block being sent is the last one, the Opcode is set to 2. > The > AC MAY opt to abort the data transfer by setting the Opcode to > 5. > When the Opcode is 5, the Value field has a zero length. > > 4.6.28. Image Identifier > > The Image Identifier message element is sent by the AC to the WTP > and > is used to indicate the expected active software version that is to > be run on the WTP. The value is a variable length UTF-8 encoded > string, which is NOT zero terminated. > > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Vendor Identifier | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Data... > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > Type: 28 for Image Identifier > > Length: >= 1 > > Data Length: Length of data field, with a maximum size of 65535. > > Data: A variable length UTF-8 encoded string containing the > firmware identifier to be run on the WTP, whose length MUST NOT > exceed 1024 octets. The length of this field is inferred from > this message element's length field. > > > PatC > > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 6:41 PM > To: Margaret Wasserman > Cc: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: Re: [Capwap] IESG Review Comment T24 > > So I frankly don't care, but I was trying to address the issue raised > by the IESG. Should I follow the desire of the chair or the AD? > > PatC > > -----Original Message----- > From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:margaret@thingmagic.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 9:56 AM > To: Margaret Wasserman > Cc: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: Re: [Capwap] IESG Review Comment T24 > > > I just spoke with Dan Romascanu on the phone (for a previously > scheduled CAPWAP status call), and I realized that my message about > this issue may have been unnecessarily terse... > > It is my understanding that we will always know the length of the > packet received at the CAPWAP layer, because it will be passed up to > us from the lower layer. Effectively, we will get a buffer and a data > length from the lower layer. I don't know of any system that wouldn't > provide that information. > > If we add a CAPWAP data length, we must always compare the CAPWAP data > length to the buffer length we received. This comparison could > theoretically result in one of three answers: > > (1) The CAPWAP data length indicates that the data ends at the end of > the lower-layer buffer. This is the expected case, and the only case > supported by the -10 version of the spec. In this case the CAPWAP > data length adds no value. > > (2) The CAPWAP data length indicates that the data ends before the end > of the lower-layer buffer. I don't believe that this should ever > happen because the other side should have passed its the correct > amount of CAPWAP data (and only that data) through DTLS and that's > what we should have recieved. I'm not sure whether we should accept > the data in this case or return an error. > > (3) The CAPWAP data length indicates that the data ends after the end > of the lower-layer buffer. In this case, we definitely have to return > an error, because we don't want to read off of the end of the lower > layer buffer. > > So, having a CAPWAP data length adds processing (to do this > comparison), and I don't see that it adds any value. It also breaks > compatibility with previous versions of CAPWAP (such as -10), so I > don't personally think we should add it. > > Margaret > > > > On Jun 17, 2008, at 11:51 AM, Margaret Wasserman wrote: > > > > > I'm personally not wild about changing the packet formats at this > > point, but there does appear to be a technical > justification for this > > change... > > > > Are there actually systems on which you wouldn't know the > packet size > > at this layer, though? Or is this just a theoretical technical > > justification? > > > > Margaret > > > > > > > > On Jun 16, 2008, at 11:35 AM, Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) wrote: > > > >> All, > >> > >> Here is the IESG Review Comment: > >> > >> T24 - Sections 4.6.27, 4.6.28 - should not these two messages > >> include length of the > >> Value fields? > >> > >> Originally, this was not included, because it could be inferred. > >> However, I can imagine a software architecture where the > packet size > >> is not known when the message elements are parsed. So I have added > >> them: > >> > >> > >> 4.6.27. Image Data > >> [...] > >> > >> 0 1 2 3 > >> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > >> | Data Type | Data Length | Data .... > >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > >> [...] > >> > >> Data: Length of data field, with a maximum size of 1024. > >> > >> Data: The Image Data field contains up to 1024 characters. If > >> the > >> block being sent is the last one, the Opcode is set to 2. > >> The AC > >> MAY opt to abort the data transfer by setting the > Opcode to 5. > >> When the Opcode is 5, the Value field has a zero length. > >> > >> 4.6.28. Image Identifier > >> [...] > >> 0 1 2 3 > >> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > >> | Vendor Identifier | > >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > >> | Value Length | Data... > >> > >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > >> [...] > >> > >> Data: Length of data field, with a maximum size of 65535. > >> > >> Data: A variable length UTF-8 encoded string containing the > >> firmware > >> identifier to be run on the WTP. > >> > >> > >> PatC > >> _________________________________________________________________ > >> To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > >> http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > >> > >> Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Fri Jun 20 10:21:53 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 041103A697F for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:21:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.949 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.650, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4yY6rJiM4m71 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:21:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37E763A63EC for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:21:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3638143A51D for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:21:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D20C440112 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:21:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6464734AC397 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:21:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C48E34AC380 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:21:39 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.117 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:21:39 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,680,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="116149294" Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Jun 2008 10:21:34 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5KHLYYo032280; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:21:34 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5KHLYuE016778; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 17:21:34 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:21:34 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:21:33 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205F5CD9F@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T12 Thread-Index: AcjPELu416c4qMlBRmmB9tpGnVSLxQAtoMNwAAVS24AAewPvAAAoI4TAAA6/H4AAFXtCEA== References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205E98146@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE51A@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE9BC@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Jun 2008 17:21:34.0650 (UTC) FILETIME=[16D0D1A0:01C8D2FA] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T12 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK, closing issue 53. PatC -----Original Message----- From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 12:07 AM To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap@frascone.com Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T12 OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 3:07 AM > To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); Romascanu, Dan (Dan); capwap@frascone.com > Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T12 > > Given that Dan was comfortable with proposed change to the AC > Descriptor message element. I am proposing to make the same change to > two other similar message elements in the base protocol. This does not > change the packet format in any way, and therefore does not introduce > any compatibility issues. I think it simply provides more clarity on > the format and expected contents. > > > 4.6.40. WTP Board Data > > The WTP Board Data message element is sent by the WTP to the AC and > contains information about the hardware present. > > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Vendor Identifier | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Board Data Sub-Element... > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > > Type: 40 for WTP Board Data > > Length: >=14 > > Vendor Identifier: A 32-bit value containing the IANA > assigned "SMI > Network Management Private Enterprise Codes" > > Board Data Sub-Element: The WTP Board Data message > element contains > multiple Board Data sub-elements, some of which are mandatory > and > some are optional, as described below. The Board Data > sub-element > has the following format: > > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Vendor Identifier | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Board Data Type | Board Data Length | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Board Data Value... > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > Board Data Type: The Board Data Type field identifies the data > being encoded. The CAPWAP protocol defines the following > values, and each of these types identify whether their > presence > is mandatory or optional: > > 0 - WTP Model Number: The WTP Model Number MUST be included > in the WTP Board Data message element. > > 1 - WTP Serial Number: The WTP Serial Number MUST > be included > in the WTP Board Data message element. > > 2 - Board ID: A hardware identifier, which MAY be > included in > the WTP Board Data message element. > > 3 - Board Revision A revision number of the board, > which MAY > be included in the WTP Board Data message element. > > 4 - Base MAC Address The WTP's Base MAC Address, > which MAY be > assigned to the primary Ethernet interface. > > Board Data Length: The length of the data in the Board Data > Value field, whose length MUST NOT exceed 1024 octets. > > Board Data Value: The data associated with the Board Data Type > field for this Board Data sub-element. > > 4.6.41. WTP Descriptor > > The WTP Descriptor message element is used by a WTP to communicate > its current hardware and software (firmware) configuration. The > value contains the following fields. > > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Max Radios | Radios in use | Encryption Capabilities | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Descriptor Sub-Element... > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > > Type: 41 for WTP Descriptor > > Length: >= 31 > > Max Radios: An 8-bit value representing the number of > radios (where > each radio is identified via the Radio ID field) supported by > the > WTP. > > Radios in use: An 8-bit value representing the number of > radios in > use in the WTP. > > Encryption Capabilities: This 16-bit field is used by the WTP to > communicate its capabilities to the AC. A WTP that does not > have > any encryption capabilities sets this field to zero (0). Refer > to > the specific wireless binding for further specification of the > Encryption Capabilities field. > > Descriptor Sub-Element: The WTP Descriptor message > element contains > multiple Descriptor sub-elements, some of which are mandatory > and > some are optional, as described below. The Descriptor > sub-element > has the following format: > > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Descriptor Vendor Identifier | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Descriptor Type | Descriptor Length | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Descriptor Data... > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > Descriptor Vendor Identifier: A 32-bit value > containing the IANA > assigned "SMI Network Management Private Enterprise Codes". > > Descriptor Type: The Descriptor Type field identifies the data > being encoded. The CAPWAP protocol defines the following > values, and each of these types identify whether their > presence > is mandatory or optional: > > 0 - Hardware Version: The WTP hardware version > number MUST be > present. > > 1 - Active Software Version: The WTP running > software version > number MUST be present. > > 2 - Boot Version: The WTP boot loader version > number MUST be > present. > > 3 - Other Software Version: The WTP non-running software > (firmware) version number MAY be present. This type is > used > to communicate alternate software versions that are > available on the WTP's non-volatile storage. > > Descriptor Length: Length of vendor specific encoding of > Descriptor Data field, whose length MUST NOT exceed 1024 > octets. > > Descriptor Data: Vendor specific data of WTP > information encoded > in the UTF-8 format. > > > PatC > > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 10:06 PM > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); capwap@frascone.com > Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T12 > > I think 4/5 is odd, personally. However, I think I have a better idea, > and one that I think will be MUCH clearer. In order to help express > the idea, I will include the whole text for the AC Descriptor section. > If this format works for you, I will replicate it in another two areas > in the spec that I had updated due to another IESG review comment. > > > 4.6.1. AC Descriptor > > The AC Descriptor message element is used by the AC to communicate > its current state. The value contains the following fields. > > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Stations | Limit | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Active WTPs | Max WTPs | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Security | R-MAC Field | Reserved1 | DTLS Policy | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | AC Information... > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > Type: 1 for AC Descriptor > > Length: >= 12 > > Stations: The number of stations currently served by the AC > > Limit: The maximum number of stations supported by the AC > > Active WTPs: The number of WTPs currently attached to the AC > > Max WTPs: The maximum number of WTPs supported by the AC > > Security: A 8 bit mask specifying the authentication credential > type supported by the AC. The following values are supported > (see > Section 2.4.4): > > 1 - X.509 Certificate Based > > 2 - Pre-Shared Secret > > R-MAC Field: The AC supports the optional Radio MAC Address field > in the CAPWAP transport Header (see Section 4.3). > > Reserved: A set of reserved bits for future use. All > implementations complying with this protocol MUST set to zero > any > bits that are reserved in the version of the protocol supported > by > that implementation. Receivers MUST ignore all bits not defined > for the version of the protocol they support. > > DTLS Policy: The AC communicates its policy on the use > of DTLS for > the CAPWAP data channel. The AC MAY communicate more than one > supported option, represented by the bit field below. The WTP > MUST abide by one of the options communicated by AC. The > following bit field values are supported: > > 1 - Clear Text Data Channel Supported > > 2 - DTLS Enabled Data Channel Supported > > AC Information: The AC Descriptor message element > contains multiple > AC Information sub-elements, and defines two sub-types, each of > which MUST be present. The AC Information sub-element has the > following format: > > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | AC Information Vendor Identifier | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | AC Information Type | AC Information Length | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | AC Information Data... > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > AC Information Vendor Identifier: A 32-bit value > containing the > IANA assigned "SMI Network Management Private Enterprise > Codes" > > AC Information Type: Vendor specific encoding of AC > information. > The following values are supported. Both the Hardware and > Software Version sub-elements MUST be included in the AC > Descriptor message element. > > 4 - Hardware Version: The AC's hardware version number. > > 5 - Software Version: The AC's Software (firmware) version > number. > > AC Information Length: Length of vendor specific > encoding of AC > information, with a maximum size of 1024. > > AC Information Data: Vendor specific encoding of AC > information. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 11:14 AM > To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap@frascone.com > Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T12 > > I won't fight this to death but I still find it confusing. > Writhing 4 in a field which can be either 4 or 5 may confuse other as > well. What about 4/5? > > Dan > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 6:40 PM > > To: capwap@frascone.com > > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T12 > > > > All, > > > > The following is the IESG Comment Review: > > > > T12 - Section 4.6.1 - in the AC Descriptor protocol > diagram delete > > =4 from the Type > > filed (it can be 4 or 5 as I understand) > > > > Actually, the reason why this is part of the diagram is > because both 4 > > > and 5 MUST be included (as described in the field > description). So in > > order to make this much clearer, we have included this in > the diagram. > > > > PatC > > _________________________________________________________________ > > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > > > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Fri Jun 20 10:22:32 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7694A3A6A63 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:22:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.079 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.079 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.520, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9xZ7TqJzSOni for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:22:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F48E3A6A16 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:22:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0643743A250 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:22:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96D0E44011E for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:22:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 694B034AC380 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:22:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7780834AC3BB for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:22:18 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.70 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:22:17 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,680,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="42938094" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Jun 2008 10:22:17 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5KHMHf7017063; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:22:17 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5KHMHke017398; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 17:22:17 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:22:17 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:22:15 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205F5CDA1@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] NEED WG Consensus: Issue 73: IESG Review Comment T32 Thread-Index: AcjSaxC7o6rFAWFpQmyUZeT/fNS9MQAOLgcwABWUEdA= References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE9C6@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Jun 2008 17:22:17.0081 (UTC) FILETIME=[301B4690:01C8D2FA] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Capwap] NEED WG Consensus: Issue 73: IESG Review Comment T32 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK, closing issue 73. PatC -----Original Message----- From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 12:05 AM To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap@frascone.com Subject: RE: [Capwap] NEED WG Consensus: Issue 73: IESG Review Comment T32 > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 3:18 AM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] NEED WG Consensus: Issue 73: IESG Review Comment T32 > > All, > > I want to make sure that no one objects to the removal of the WTP > Operational Statistics message element. I cannot for the life of me > figure out what it does, nor can the folks that implemented our code. > So far both Margaret and Dan are OK with the proposal. > > In this change, I would not renumber any of the message elements to > limit broader impact. We would leave the message element unused. > > Thanks, > > PatC Best is probably to mention in the spec that it is unused and reserved. Dan _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Fri Jun 20 10:42:18 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D7EF3A6991 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:42:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.166 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.166 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.433, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hh+SCIRt8XzK for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:42:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 750833A67B3 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:42:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7466743A220 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:42:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1CEC440120 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:42:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D180934AC39C for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:42:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C19634AC3BB for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:42:05 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.70 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:42:05 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,680,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="42940922" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Jun 2008 10:42:02 -0700 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5KHg2x6018081 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:42:02 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5KHg289002951 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 17:42:02 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:41:58 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:41:57 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205F5CDCD@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Issue 74: T33 Thread-Index: AcjS/O/WQzYNJSqyQR2JLPnbwHzlRw== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Jun 2008 17:41:58.0270 (UTC) FILETIME=[F02669E0:01C8D2FC] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] Issue 74: T33 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com All, Dan was OK with the proposed change, but he asked a question of how frequently the statistics would roll over. There are really two separate message elements, so I want to address them separately. 4.6.49. WTP Radio Statistics This message element is used by the WTP to send information about a particular radio, whether the radio failed or some event transpired that caused the radio behavior to change. One example of the latter is that the radio changed channel. Assuming that the radio failed once an hour, which is representative of a much broader problem, the counter would roll over after 1092 hours, or 91 days. However, assuming that the channel was to change once every 20 minutes (on average), then the counter would roll over after 364 hours, or 30 days (~1 month). I would like to propose that we rename the message element to "WTP Radio Change Statistics", because it is more representative of the fact that the stats are really around changes in the actual radio. I would also propose changing the Last Failure Type text to make sure that it refers to the actual radio vs. the WTP (I added the word radio): Last Failure Type: The last WTP radio failure. The following enumerated values are supported: 4.6.50. WTP Reboot Statistics This message element tracks WTP failures that are non-radio specific. This includes WTP crashes, memory or some other component failure, etc. Assuming the WTP crashed once an hour, again a problem that is much broader than simply statistics, it would take 1092 hours, or 91 days, to roll over. Thoughts? PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Fri Jun 20 10:51:04 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C3953A69DB for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:51:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.228 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.228 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.371, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H3YEyO-drWSP for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:51:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 110873A63EC for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:51:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EDC143A259 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:51:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DC6C440120 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:50:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFDF534AC397 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:50:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F9B234AC38C for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:50:52 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.68.10.86 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com (sj-iport-4.cisco.com [171.68.10.86]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:50:51 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,680,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="16429574" Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Jun 2008 10:50:51 -0700 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5KHooUt017294; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:50:50 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5KHooFo010863; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 17:50:50 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:50:50 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:50:49 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205F5CDE1@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] questions ondraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-specification-10.txt Thread-Index: AcjSPYIIQ++WAJmbQ0CG76Nj5h0UOAAv6Fqg References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE528@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Yong Zhang" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Jun 2008 17:50:50.0302 (UTC) FILETIME=[2D440DE0:01C8D2FE] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Cc: capwap@frascone.com Subject: Re: [Capwap] questions ondraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-specification-10.txt X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com 1. 4.7.10 MaxFailedDTLSSessionRetry is not a timer. Should it be put in 4.8? Correct, and this was already raised by Dan in his review and it has been moved to 4.8 already. 2. 4.8.2/3/4 are running time counters. They are not configurable. Should they be removed from here? No, these are counters, and I believe they are appropriate in this section. Yes, they are not configurable. 3. 4.8.8 ReportInterval. Is it a CAPWAP timer? Should it be in 4.7? This one seems not defined in the state machine transition. Is this for 4.7.14 StatisticsTimer? Yes, this needs to move to section 4.7, and it is referenced in the Decryption Error Report message element. I have created issue 104 as an editorial issue. 4. 4.8.9 RetransmitCount. I think it should be called MaxRetransmitCount. And "This is a monotonically increasing counter" need to be removed. I'm ok changing the name if people think it provides more clarity. However, it is a monotonically increasing counter - everytime a packet is transmitted, a RetransmitCount++ instruction is required. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Fri Jun 20 10:55:55 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C606C3A67B3 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:55:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.274 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.274 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.325, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f385Y-4xl4Pc for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:55:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCFB53A63EC for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:55:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC98943A74A for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:55:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B6A1440120 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:55:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1072734AC38C for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:55:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50699361000F for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:55:15 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.117 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:55:15 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,680,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="116160306" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Jun 2008 10:55:15 -0700 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5KHtEsF021099; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:55:14 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5KHtFcd007530; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 17:55:15 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:55:14 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:55:13 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205F5CDE6@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] WaitDTLS/WaitJoin timers indraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-specification-10.txt Thread-Index: AcjS9jV6gdLUYN5kRAGdhtkwm+KXXwACFvrQ References: From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Yong Zhang" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Jun 2008 17:55:14.0138 (UTC) FILETIME=[CA863BA0:01C8D2FE] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Capwap] WaitDTLS/WaitJoin timers indraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-specification-10.txt X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com The intent for both timers is: WaitDTLS: This timer is used to make sure that the DTLS session is established within the required timeframe. If the DTLS session isn't setup, perhaps because either party is not responding, then the timer will trigger and the state will change. WaitJoin: Once the DTLS session has been established, we need to protect against a WTP that opts to NOT send a Join Request. So in this instance, the WaitJoin would trigger, and the state would once more change. PatC -----Original Message----- From: Yong Zhang [mailto:yozhang@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 9:54 AM To: capwap@frascone.com Subject: [Capwap] WaitDTLS/WaitJoin timers indraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-specification-10.txt WaitDTLS by its name should be DTLS session setup related, but this spec. (6.1/2) requires it deactivated after the Join Req/Resp are received. WaitJoin seems no use in this case?? Also the WaitDTLS timer is started earlier than WaitJoin timer, however, the default value for these two timers (4.7.15/16) are all 60s. if WaitJoin has some other use, it need to have a less value than WaitDTLS to work. Yong _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Fri Jun 20 11:08:49 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37EE13A69DA for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:08:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id genov+P1nB7g for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:08:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 362DE3A699E for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:08:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26CB743A598 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:08:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83958440122 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:08:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1FAB34AC3EF for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:08:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21B0134AC397 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:08:27 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from yx-out-1718.google.com (yx-out-1718.google.com [74.125.44.156]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:08:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yx-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 3so263838yxi.80 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:08:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.52.9 with SMTP id z9mr1630260wfz.258.1213985305592; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:08:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.143.3.6 with HTTP; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:08:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:08:25 -0700 From: "Yong Zhang" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205F5CDE1@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE528@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205F5CDE1@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> Cc: capwap@frascone.com Subject: Re: [Capwap] questions ondraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-specification-10.txt X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com For my questiion4. I didn't notice 4.8.7 exist. So it does not need to change the name. The first sentence in 4.8 said "A WTP or AC that implements the CAPWAP Discovery phase MUST allow for the following variables to be configured by system management". Maybe you need to rephrase this, since 4.8.2/3/4/9 are not configurable. Thanks! Yong On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 10:50 AM, Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) wrote: > 1. 4.7.10 MaxFailedDTLSSessionRetry is not a timer. Should it be put > in 4.8? > Correct, and this was already raised by Dan in his review and it > has been moved to 4.8 already. > > 2. 4.8.2/3/4 are running time counters. They are not configurable. > Should they be removed from here? > No, these are counters, and I believe they are appropriate in this > section. Yes, they are not configurable. > > 3. 4.8.8 ReportInterval. Is it a CAPWAP timer? Should it be in 4.7? > This one seems not defined in the state machine transition. Is this for > 4.7.14 StatisticsTimer? > Yes, this needs to move to section 4.7, and it is referenced in > the Decryption Error Report message element. I have created issue 104 as > an editorial issue. > > 4. 4.8.9 RetransmitCount. I think it should be called > MaxRetransmitCount. And "This is a monotonically increasing counter" > need to be removed. > I'm ok changing the name if people think it provides more clarity. > However, it is a monotonically increasing counter - everytime a packet > is transmitted, a RetransmitCount++ instruction is required. > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Fri Jun 20 11:19:26 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 762023A6997 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:19:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lFbXTV1ceS1d for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:19:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A14453A6807 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:19:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3ED5175198C for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:19:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D46DF440123 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:19:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B66F34AC3AE for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:19:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52EA53610003 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:19:04 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com (wf-out-1314.google.com [209.85.200.174]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:19:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 28so1303143wfc.11 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:19:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.127.10 with SMTP id z10mr1646526wfc.288.1213985943108; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:19:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.143.3.6 with HTTP; Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:19:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:19:03 -0700 From: "Yong Zhang" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205F5CDE6@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205F5CDE6@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> Cc: capwap@frascone.com Subject: Re: [Capwap] WaitDTLS/WaitJoin timers indraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-specification-10.txt X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com This info is clear. But in the spec., the WaitDTLS covers the WaitJoin. WairDTLS timer is not cleared after the DTLS session is esatblished, but it is only cleared after the Join REQ/RESP are received. (6.1/2 describes this). Thanks! Yong On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 10:55 AM, Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) wrote: > The intent for both timers is: > > WaitDTLS: This timer is used to make sure that the DTLS session is > established within the required timeframe. If the DTLS session isn't > setup, perhaps because either party is not responding, then the timer > will trigger and the state will change. > > WaitJoin: Once the DTLS session has been established, we need to protect > against a WTP that opts to NOT send a Join Request. So in this instance, > the WaitJoin would trigger, and the state would once more change. > > PatC > > -----Original Message----- > From: Yong Zhang [mailto:yozhang@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 9:54 AM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] WaitDTLS/WaitJoin timers > indraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-specification-10.txt > > WaitDTLS by its name should be DTLS session setup related, but this > spec. (6.1/2) requires it deactivated after the Join Req/Resp are > received. > > WaitJoin seems no use in this case?? > > Also the WaitDTLS timer is started earlier than WaitJoin timer, however, > the default value for these two timers (4.7.15/16) are all 60s. if > WaitJoin has some other use, it need to have a less value than WaitDTLS > to work. > > Yong > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From ca.tang@th.com.my Sun Jun 22 05:39:49 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA4B83A69BD; Sun, 22 Jun 2008 05:39:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -81.448 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-81.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, HELO_DYNAMIC_SPLIT_IP=3.493, HELO_EQ_DYNAMIC=1.144, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_SPEC_REPLICA_OBFU=1.812, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_NOV5A=1.062, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_NOV5F=0.666, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kTrXXfaufwWP; Sun, 22 Jun 2008 05:39:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 41.pool85-49-34.dynamic.orange.es (41.pool85-49-34.dynamic.orange.es [85.49.34.41]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 7A1933A67B6; Sun, 22 Jun 2008 05:39:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: 209.57.16.216 by smtp.85.49.34.41; Sun, 22 Jun 2008 08:39:48 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Mariana Shelton" Reply-To: "Mariana Shelton" To: atompub-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: Watches made to impress Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2008 08:39:48 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit A Tag Heuer watch is a luxury statement on its own. Unfortunately, that luxury comes with a price... Except when you visit Diamond Replicas, the web's most comprehensive collection of brand name replica watches. In Diamond Replicas, any Tag Heuer is available for just over $200. http://zezupacadyr21.blogspot.com/ For those of us who have always dreamed of wearing a Tag Heuer, there is no better time to make our dream come true than this very moment, and no better place to do it, than at Diamond Replicas. Here you will find the most prestigious replica Tag Heuers, at an unbeatable price. Come inside now... your Tag Heuer watch is waiting for you at Diamond Replicas. http://zezupacadyr21.blogspot.com/ From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Mon Jun 23 06:24:21 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CA3C3A6904 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 06:24:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.417 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.417 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.232, BAYES_40=-0.185] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WvZYX7NFUm77 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 06:24:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 853EC3A68FD for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 06:24:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA442432A14 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 06:24:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91F0644018C for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 06:23:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B93B34AC06D for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 06:23:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7912B34AC077 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 06:23:57 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com (nj300815-nj-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.12.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 06:23:57 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,690,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="124491673" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 23 Jun 2008 09:23:55 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,690,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="222543909" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 23 Jun 2008 09:23:55 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 15:23:51 +0200 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: AD review of draft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 Thread-Index: AcjVNGCAuSImkNOHQlu4FZuj/YyaPA== From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: Subject: [Capwap] AD review of draft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Here is the AD review of draft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06. Although the document looks stable and in pretty good shape, there are a number of issues that need to be fixed or seem unclear, so a new I-D revision seems to be necessary before sending the document to IETF Last Call. I have divided my comments into Technical and Editorial. Regards, Dan ------------------------------- T1. Section 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 - What version of IEEE 802.1X is this document supporting? I believe that this needs to be clarified, as IEEE 802.1X is currently under revision, and the document needs to be included as a Normative reference. T2. Section 4, definition of WLAN ID bitmap This field is to be set to zero for unicast packets and is unused if the WTP is not providing IEEE 802.11 encryption. This being a bitmap, is the intention to say 'set to all zero'? T3. What is the encoding of the Capabilities or Capability field (see also E6)? T4. Section 6.1 - what is the format and length of the SSID field? T5. Section 6.3 - why length = 3? T6. Section 6.6 - should not length be >=3? (RadioID + WLANID + Flags at minimum) T7. Section 6.10 - the definition of how the field Band supported is codified is confusing. First a three bit integer value is mentioned, but then the explanation seems to indicate it's a bit mask T8. Section 6.12 - the length should be 40 T9. Section 6.16 - for all statistics counters in this message - explain 1. do they start counting from 0 at initialization? What is the behavior when the device loses power? What is the behavior when they reach maximal value? Minimal interval between two rollover events T10. Section 6.23 - Country Code Special attention is required with use of this field, as implementations which take action based on this field could violate regulatory requirements. Some regulatory bodies do permit configuration of the country code under certain restrictions, such as the FCC, when WTPs are certified as Software Defined Radios. I do not know what can be done with this text from a technical (implementation or processing) point of view. What 'special attention' means? What can an implementation know about regulatory restrictions? And what 'certain restrictions' mean? I suggest to reconsider if this text is needed and if it is clarify if there are any technical impacts or move it to a separate note or subsection. E1. It is recommended to avoid mentioning references in Abstract sections. The current Abstract section mentions [3], I suggest to remove this. E2. Terminology - The definition of a Station (STA) differs from the one in [3]. Is it there that it should extended to describe the presence of a MAC and a PHY, or is it here it is unnecessarily verbose? E3. There are a lot of acronyms and terms mostly from the IEEE 802.11 realm that are neither expanded, not explained - RSN, WMM, EDCA, OFDM are only part of them. I suggest to expand the terminology section to add them E4. Section 4, page 19, Data rate - s/The data rate field is a 16 bit unsigned value. The contents of the field is set to 10 times the data rate in Mbps of the packet received by the WTP. /The data rate field is a 16 bit unsigned value expressing the data rate of the packets received by the WTP in units of 0.1 Mbps./ E5. Section 6 - for consistency it looks like the IEEE 802.11 Message Element / Type Value table should be a numbered figure. E6. Section 6.1 - is the field named 'Capabilities' as in the diagram or 'Capability' as in the description? E7. Section 6.2 - Antenna Selection should be represented in the diagram as N x 8 bit fields. Maybe the diagram is meant to say that padding is applied to 32-bit multiple in this case, but this should be clearly described, if this is the case. E8. Section 6.6 - the 6 Flags bits should rather be named Reserved Bits. E9. Section 6.13 - more information should be included about the supported rates syntax and length (even if the reference to the MIB document in [2] is provided E10. Section 6.14 - IEEE 802.1P tag is three bits - why is the 802.1P Precedence Tag two octets? And why is it called Precedence Tag and not Priority Tag (same comment for 6.20, 6.22)? E11. Section 6.23 - Document ISO/IEC 3166- 1 should be made a Normative Reference E12 - Section 6.25 - is radio type a bitmask? Say clearly so. No need to say anything about the value for all four radio types _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Mon Jun 23 08:57:09 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C7AB3A69D4 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 08:57:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.635 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.635 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.964, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kY3R0lWR-aR2 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 08:57:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21D7A3A6A29 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 08:57:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91CD91C40F6D for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 08:57:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B42594401A0 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 08:56:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7E8634AC0D6 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 08:56:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D23234AC022 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 08:56:52 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com (nj300815-nj-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.12.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 08:56:51 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,690,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="124523148" Received: from unknown (HELO nj300815-nj-erheast.avaya.com) ([198.152.6.5]) by nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 23 Jun 2008 11:56:50 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,690,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="215918459" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by nj300815-nj-erheast-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 23 Jun 2008 11:56:50 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 17:56:48 +0200 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: AD review for draft-ietf-capwap-dhc-ac-option-01 Thread-Index: AcjVSb5m79FCQhzARE6FJVf6UGxbEQ== From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: Subject: [Capwap] AD review for draft-ietf-capwap-dhc-ac-option-01 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com This is the AD review for draft-ietf-capwap-dhc-ac-option-01. The document is quite simple and in good shape. I have only a small number of comments (grouped in Technical and Editorial) which I suggest to treat as Last Call comments. If I do not hear any objections I will send this document to IETF Last Call. Thanks and Regards, Dan T1. In the Security Considerations section the following text looks to me quite weak in describing the implication of the security vulnerabilities of the DHCP-based discovery option: . Therefore, the options defined in this document are not the only methods used to determine which AC a WTP should connect to. It may be better to be more assertive here, on the lines of something like: . Therefore, in security sensitive environments the options defined in this document SHOULD NOT be the only methods used to determine which AC a WTP should connect to. E1. The Intended Status is not mentioned in the document header. Needs to add Intended Status: Proposed Standard (if approved) E2. It is not necessary to use capitalized MUST notation when describing the IANA actions in the IANA considerations section. _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Mon Jun 23 11:15:30 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C23883A6838 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 11:15:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c+ZoVqzuWhxA for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 11:15:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11A0C3A694B for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 11:15:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1517439FDB for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 11:15:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 934D8440198 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 11:15:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D5CC34AC0D6 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 11:15:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4004234AC09B for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 11:14:49 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com (wf-out-1314.google.com [209.85.200.169]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 11:14:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 28so2691684wfc.11 for ; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 11:14:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.241.15 with SMTP id o15mr4251447wfh.26.1214244888710; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 11:14:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.156.14 with HTTP; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 11:14:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 11:14:48 -0700 From: "Yong Zhang" To: capwap@frascone.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Subject: [Capwap] ImageDataStartTimer in draft-ietf-capwap-protocol-specification-10.txt X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com I have a question on this ImageDataStartTimer. What's the purpose of it? Is it used to define the AC waiting time for the first WTP image data req after it sends the join resp? After the first image data req is received from WTP, this timer will be no use any more after the AC start image data push to WTP? Refer to figure 4/6 in chapter 9, the WTP will only send the first image data req message, then it will receive image data req from AC, and reply with image data resp. Page 24 Join to Image Data (f): AC: ImageDataStartTimer is started after the AC receives the Image Data Request message from the WTP Page 25 Image Data to Image Data (j):AC This state transition occurs when the AC receives the Image Data Request message from the WTP while already in the Image Data state. The AC resets the ImageDataStartTimer timer. Here you want to say the first Image data req from WTP, or the image data response from WTP for AC's image data req? If it is the first one, there is no image data req from WTP when the FSM is in Image Data state. Reset timer is the timer to be restarted or canceled? Thanks! Yong In this spec., most of req messages are send by WTP. The image data req is an exception, which is mainly used by AC. _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Tue Jun 24 05:16:07 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57A0E3A6994 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 05:16:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.862 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.862 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.737, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WEwM8ZCyrLg9 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 05:16:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49BA93A68EF for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 05:16:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D421431EDC for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 05:16:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B01D64401B6 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 05:15:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 808AC34AC009 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 05:15:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B32A34AC06C for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 05:15:57 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Sender first seen 7 days 18:12:20 ago / dynamic or unknown reverse DNS) Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 05:15:56 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,696,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="112366499" Received: from unknown (HELO nj300815-nj-erheast.avaya.com) ([198.152.6.5]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 24 Jun 2008 08:15:54 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,696,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="216365791" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by nj300815-nj-erheast-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 24 Jun 2008 08:15:53 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:15:52 +0200 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: AD review of draft-ietf-capwap-threat-analysis-01 Thread-Index: AcjV9Att7icrvuvCQjSmfObCnOWnXg== From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: Subject: [Capwap] AD review of draft-ietf-capwap-threat-analysis-01 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Please find below the AD Review of draft-ietf-capwap-threat-analysis-01. I believe that the document is mature and stable. I found a small number of issues which are grouped in Technical and Editorial. As none of them has a dramatic impact or would require very consistent editing I suggest to consider these comments as Last Call comments, and proceed directly to IETF Last Call with this document. T1. Did the editors and the Working Group consider capitalizing RECOMMENDED and NOT RECOMMENDED as per RFC2119 when dealing with the recommended or not recommended practices described in Sections 4.2 and 4.3? If they did I would be interested to hear why they chose not to use capitalization. T2. Section 8 - I am missing from the list of vulnerabilities introduced by CAPWAP the vulnerabilities introduced by the CAPWAP MIB (or other) management interface. By exposing management objects related to the CAPWAP protocol the management interface exposes information otherwise not accessible to managers of 'fat' APs that a CAPWAP deployment replaces. E1. [80211I], [80211SEC] and [8021X] are fundamental for the understanding of this document. I suggest that they are moved to Normative References. E2. It would be appropriate to include a note drawing the attention to the fact that this document is based on the 2004 edition of the IEEE 802.1X standard, and that a new version of the protocol is under development in IEEE 802.1X at the time of the development of this document. E3. Please be explicit in the Abstract section about the fact that the scope of the document is CAPWAP deployments that will use the IEEE 802.11 binding Regards, Dan _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Tue Jun 24 05:51:27 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FBAE3A6866 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 05:51:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gdUwsKr1a0tx for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 05:51:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D5F53A6808 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 05:51:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2A98432282 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 05:51:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A184440177 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 05:51:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6ECB834AC0CC for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 05:51:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B7E634AC0CA for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 05:51:08 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from exchange.tm.thingmagic.com (vpn.thingmagic.com [204.9.221.19]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 05:51:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.36.0.26] (76.24.195.210) by exchange.tm.thingmagic.com (10.0.0.9) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.278.0; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 08:51:00 -0400 In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Message-ID: From: Margaret Wasserman Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 08:51:00 -0400 To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753.1) Cc: capwap@frascone.com Subject: Re: [Capwap] AD review for draft-ietf-capwap-dhc-ac-option-01 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Sending this document straight to IETF LC makes sense to me. The proposed changes could easily be made along with the resolution to any other LC comments. Margaret On Jun 23, 2008, at 11:56 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > This is the AD review for draft-ietf-capwap-dhc-ac-option-01. The > document is quite simple and in good shape. I have only a small number > of comments (grouped in Technical and Editorial) which I suggest to > treat as Last Call comments. If I do not hear any objections I will > send > this document to IETF Last Call. > > Thanks and Regards, > > Dan > > > > T1. In the Security Considerations section the following text looks to > me quite weak in describing the implication of the security > vulnerabilities of the DHCP-based discovery option: > > . Therefore, the options defined in this > document are not the only methods used to determine which AC a WTP > should connect to. > > It may be better to be more assertive here, on the lines of something > like: > > . Therefore, in security sensitive environments the options > defined in > this > document SHOULD NOT be the only methods used to determine which > AC a > WTP > should connect to. > > > E1. The Intended Status is not mentioned in the document header. Needs > to add Intended Status: Proposed Standard (if approved) > > E2. It is not necessary to use capitalized MUST notation when > describing > the IANA actions in the IANA considerations section. > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Tue Jun 24 05:59:37 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F2753A6920 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 05:59:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PDfPLha1pnMm for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 05:59:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29D183A6813 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 05:59:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82043432215 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 05:59:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E645440177 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 05:59:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60A1434AC0FD for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 05:59:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B617234AC0B1 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 05:59:27 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from exchange.tm.thingmagic.com (vpn.thingmagic.com [204.9.221.19]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 05:59:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.36.0.26] (76.24.195.210) by exchange.tm.thingmagic.com (10.0.0.9) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.278.0; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 08:59:24 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Message-ID: To: From: Margaret Wasserman Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 08:59:24 -0400 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753.1) Subject: [Capwap] Last Call on Protocol Spec Changes X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Hi Everyone, Pat has outlined a set of changes to address the AD review comments and other recent comments on the CAPWAP Protocol Specification (draft- ietf-capwap-protocol-specification-10.txt). These changes have all been out on the list for over a week now, and there have been no unresolved objections. So, if there are objections sent to the list by Sunday, June 29th, we will incorporate these changes and ask our Area Director, Dan, to send this document to IETF Last Call. Margaret _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Tue Jun 24 06:02:02 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6715B3A69B2 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 06:02:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JPgGjAbc6PrK for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 06:01:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19C473A698B for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 06:01:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7471E43212D for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 06:01:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BC8F440177 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 06:01:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27BDE34AC107 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 06:01:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5EB034AC10B for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 06:01:42 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from exchange.tm.thingmagic.com (vpn.thingmagic.com [204.9.221.19]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 06:01:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.36.0.26] (76.24.195.210) by exchange.tm.thingmagic.com (10.0.0.9) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.278.0; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 09:01:40 -0400 In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Message-ID: <52AB7C7C-E385-43F3-8C64-2C30CF11AED6@thingmagic.com> From: Margaret Wasserman Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 09:01:39 -0400 To: Margaret Wasserman X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753.1) Cc: capwap@frascone.com Subject: Re: [Capwap] Last Call on Protocol Spec Changes X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Oops... On Jun 24, 2008, at 8:59 AM, Margaret Wasserman wrote: > So, if there are > objections sent to the list by Sunday, June 29th, we will incorporate Of course, I meant "if there are _no_ objections sent to the list by Sunday, June 29th..." :-) Margaret _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From cabello@zenithcabello.com Tue Jun 24 14:29:45 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E67A93A68F6; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:29:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -58.695 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-58.695 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_80=2, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, FS_REPLICA=0.994, FS_REPLICAWATCH=10.357, HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC=4.295, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_SPEC_REPLICA_OBFU=1.812, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_NOV5A=1.062, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_NOV5F=0.666, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wzshNVMd+ejU; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:29:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 140-40-223-201.adsl.terra.cl (140-40-223-201.adsl.terra.cl [201.223.40.140]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 6AF5C3A6781; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:29:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: 11.246.53.54 by smtp.201.223.40.140; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 17:29:19 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Erik Covington" Reply-To: "Erik Covington" To: avt@ietf.org Subject: Why replica watches are better Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 17:29:19 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit A Tag Heuer watch is a luxury statement on its own. Unfortunately, that luxury comes with a price... Except when you visit Diamond Replicas, the web's most comprehensive collection of brand name replica watches. In Diamond Replicas, any Tag Heuer is available for just over $200. http://zikuhexupum32.blogspot.com/ For those of us who have always dreamed of wearing a Tag Heuer, there is no better time to make our dream come true than this very moment, and no better place to do it, than at Diamond Replicas. Here you will find the most prestigious replica Tag Heuers, at an unbeatable price. Come inside now... your Tag Heuer watch is waiting for you at Diamond Replicas. http://zikuhexupum32.blogspot.com/ From c.lorscheider@asbinfo.de Wed Jun 25 05:58:08 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 359A83A69D1; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 05:58:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -79.401 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-79.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FS_REPLICA=0.994, HELO_DYNAMIC_CHELLO_NL=3.595, HELO_EQ_NL=0.55, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_SPEC_REPLICA_OBFU=1.812, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_NOV5A=1.062, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_NOV5F=0.666, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VdJu+MBaWbRI; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 05:58:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from g176184.upc-g.chello.nl (g176184.upc-g.chello.nl [80.57.176.184]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E6DE03A68B9; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 05:57:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: 155.0.98.224 by smtp.80.57.176.184; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:57:49 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Mary Farris" Reply-To: "Mary Farris" To: avt@ietf.org Subject: Classic timepieces replicas Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:57:49 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit A Tag Heuer watch is a luxury statement on its own. Unfortunately, that luxury comes with a price... Except when you visit Diamond Replicas, the web's most comprehensive collection of brand name replica watches. In Diamond Replicas, any Tag Heuer is available for just over $200. http://www.geocities.com/madisontidyf For those of us who have always dreamed of wearing a Tag Heuer, there is no better time to make our dream come true than this very moment, and no better place to do it, than at Diamond Replicas. Here you will find the most prestigious replica Tag Heuers, at an unbeatable price. Come inside now... your Tag Heuer watch is waiting for you at Diamond Replicas. http://www.geocities.com/madisontidyf From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 25 07:03:19 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCB653A69D7 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 07:03:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g1NxQTRAvWlT for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 07:03:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2260C3A6A70 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 07:03:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FFB84329DD for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 07:03:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA8214400F7 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 07:03:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2704F34AC11A for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 07:03:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F5AD34AC08C for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 07:03:04 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from pass-seymour.com (marussyr001.pass-seymour.com [12.33.96.185]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 07:03:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ([172.16.5.247]) by Marussyr001.pass-seymour.com with ESMTP id 5202449.42550069; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:56:29 -0400 From: mike.hines@ortronics.com To: capwap@frascone.com Message-ID: Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:02:36 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on PSLHub/PSL/US(Release 6.5.2|June 01, 2004) at 06/25/2008 10:02:37 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [Capwap] Mike Hines/PSL/US is out of the office. X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com I will be out of the office starting 06/25/2008 and will not return until 07/08/2008. In my absence, feel free to leave an e-mail or contact Rudy Montgelas at (860) 405-2969 / rudolph.montgelas@ortronics.com or Jim Hart at (860)405-2816 / james.hart@ortronics.com for immediate assistance. _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Wed Jun 25 08:31:18 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B4423A6961 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:31:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B0luShb6IPTv for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:31:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F44F3A68C2 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:31:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B01B433CBF for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:31:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3937E440108 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:31:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E966B34AC061 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:31:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFB5F34AC109 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:31:06 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com (wx-out-0506.google.com [66.249.82.225]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:31:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id h29so1568996wxd.11 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:31:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.143.2.19 with SMTP id e19mr6971449wfi.90.1214407865436; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:31:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.143.3.6 with HTTP; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:31:05 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:31:05 -0700 From: "Yong Zhang" To: margaret@thingmagic.com, capwap@frascone.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Subject: Re: [Capwap] Last Call on Protocol Spec Changes (Margaret Wasserman) X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Margaret, I have send some questions on draft-10 to this list recently, and they are not answered. I found a new error in page 30: Reset to DTLS Teardown(s). In here, it should be WTP tx and AC rx the Reset response. Chapter 2.3.1 CAPWAP Protocol State Transitions is used to give a detailed definition of the FSM, or it just list the important part. I found something are missing. For example, it does not tell you what the AC state will be after the image download is finished. The event that triggers the transition from Image data to Reset does not have a case of successful download. Join to Image Data (f): WTP will init the EchoInterval timer. Is it needed? In the image data state, AC will push the image to WTP, and the channel will have messages. Thanks! Yong _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From ca@pressdeco.com Wed Jun 25 08:54:25 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4415228C122; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:54:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -73.501 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-73.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_80=2, FS_REPLICA=0.994, GB_ROLEX=5, HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC=4.295, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_SPEC_REPLICA_OBFU=1.812, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX=1.666, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_NOV5A=1.062, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_REP=1.666, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tGQKkXdgGwry; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:54:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bl9-236-154.dsl.telepac.pt (bl9-236-154.dsl.telepac.pt [85.242.236.154]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D21A63A686E; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:53:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: 86.231.60.154 by smtp.85.242.236.154; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 11:53:47 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Eleanor Pitts" Reply-To: "Eleanor Pitts" To: capwap-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: Rolex replica is a ultimate gift Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 11:53:47 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit If the only thing standing between you and a luxurious Cartier watch is money, then today is your lucky day! Diamond Replicas, the world-famous replica watches dealer, is offering a 15% discount during these spring months for two or more watches, making their whole Cartier collection even more affordable. http://www.geocities.com/hollingsworthkifyzo As you are probably aware of, Diamond Replicas has one of the most extensive collections of Cartier replica watches in the whole wide web. Who cares if they are not legitimate? These replicas are of such high quality that not even a connoisseur would be able to distinguish them from an original Cartier. And with their online delivery guarantee you will be enjoying your new watch in just a couple of days! So, what are you waiting for? Visit Diamond Replicas today! http://www.geocities.com/hollingsworthkifyzo From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Thu Jun 26 04:44:05 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BAAC3A6A7F for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 04:44:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.539 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.539 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.060, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e3X4WS4QcyqR for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 04:44:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5B8E3A686D for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 04:44:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAB7F43210C for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 04:44:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D9D74401EA for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 04:43:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C11734AC10D for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 04:43:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 683AA34AC030 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 04:43:55 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.71 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 04:43:55 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,708,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="60504222" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Jun 2008 04:43:50 -0700 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5QBhoKK009957; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 04:43:50 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5QBhovw024540; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:43:50 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 26 Jun 2008 04:43:50 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 04:43:49 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDD775@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: New Issue 105: Intro to section 4.8 incorrect Thread-Index: AcjTAMGQPb/rG7zHRk6n6YKr0tpLGAEgFMGA References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE528@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205F5CDE1@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Yong Zhang" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Jun 2008 11:43:50.0508 (UTC) FILETIME=[E6ECA2C0:01C8D781] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Cc: capwap@frascone.com Subject: [Capwap] New Issue 105: Intro to section 4.8 incorrect X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Yes, you have a point that the introduction to section 4.8 is incorrect. It also states that the variables in the section are valid when the WTP does discovery of the AC, while many of the variables have nothing to do with AC discovery. I am therefore proposing: This section defines the CAPWAP protocol variables, which are used for various protocol functions. Some of these variables are configurable, while others are counters or have a fixed value. For non counter related variables, default values are specified. However, when a WTP's variable configuration is explicitly overridden by an AC, the WTP MUST save the new value. PatC -----Original Message----- From: Yong Zhang [mailto:yozhang@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 11:08 AM To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) Cc: capwap@frascone.com Subject: Re: [Capwap] questions ondraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-specification-10.txt For my questiion4. I didn't notice 4.8.7 exist. So it does not need to change the name. The first sentence in 4.8 said "A WTP or AC that implements the CAPWAP Discovery phase MUST allow for the following variables to be configured by system management". Maybe you need to rephrase this, since 4.8.2/3/4/9 are not configurable. Thanks! Yong On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 10:50 AM, Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) wrote: > 1. 4.7.10 MaxFailedDTLSSessionRetry is not a timer. Should it be put > in 4.8? > Correct, and this was already raised by Dan in his review and it > has been moved to 4.8 already. > > 2. 4.8.2/3/4 are running time counters. They are not configurable. > Should they be removed from here? > No, these are counters, and I believe they are appropriate in > this section. Yes, they are not configurable. > > 3. 4.8.8 ReportInterval. Is it a CAPWAP timer? Should it be in 4.7? > This one seems not defined in the state machine transition. Is this > for > 4.7.14 StatisticsTimer? > Yes, this needs to move to section 4.7, and it is referenced in > the Decryption Error Report message element. I have created issue 104 > as an editorial issue. > > 4. 4.8.9 RetransmitCount. I think it should be called > MaxRetransmitCount. And "This is a monotonically increasing counter" > need to be removed. > I'm ok changing the name if people think it provides more clarity. > However, it is a monotonically increasing counter - everytime a packet > is transmitted, a RetransmitCount++ instruction is required. > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Thu Jun 26 04:53:51 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 294DD3A67AE for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 04:53:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.544 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.544 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.055, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HMl+rwhbjxJX for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 04:53:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 258753A682D for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 04:53:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77C38432078 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 04:53:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E284C4401FB for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 04:53:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C583F34AC109 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 04:53:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 728B834AC10F for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 04:53:43 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.70 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 04:53:43 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,708,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="45019436" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Jun 2008 04:53:43 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5QBrgZf022113; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 04:53:42 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5QBrgC5002104; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:53:43 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 26 Jun 2008 04:53:42 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 04:53:41 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDD776@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: New Issue 106: WaitJoin may be unnecessary Thread-Index: AcjTAibvCvi53PISSbWGccEsKqdYCgEgE2mg References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205F5CDE6@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Yong Zhang" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Jun 2008 11:53:42.0868 (UTC) FILETIME=[47FF9940:01C8D783] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Cc: capwap@frascone.com Subject: [Capwap] New Issue 106: WaitJoin may be unnecessary X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com I believe you may be correct that there is a technical issue. Originally, the WaitJoin was used to timeout if the WTP did not sent the Join Request, or the AC did not send the Join Response. However, when DTLS was introduced, we started to rely on the WaitDTLS timer. It seems like we've started to rely much more on the WaitDTLS timer in the latter drafts, to the point where I believe that we could simply remove the WaitJoin timer and have little impact to the state machine. >From what I can tell, the "Join to DTLS Teardown (e)" state transition currently triggers if the WaitJoin timer expires, and we would have to change this to WaitDTLS instead. Further, the "DTLS Connect to Join (d)" state transition would simply need to have its reference to WaitJoin removed. So since it appears as if the WaitDTLS timers are initialized properly, the timeout triggers are properly defined, and it is well specified in its handling during the Join Request/Response in section 6.1 and 6.2, this change would have mimimal impact. Thoughts? PatC -----Original Message----- From: Yong Zhang [mailto:yozhang@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 11:19 AM To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) Cc: capwap@frascone.com Subject: Re: [Capwap] WaitDTLS/WaitJoin timers indraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-specification-10.txt This info is clear. But in the spec., the WaitDTLS covers the WaitJoin. WairDTLS timer is not cleared after the DTLS session is esatblished, but it is only cleared after the Join REQ/RESP are received. (6.1/2 describes this). Thanks! Yong On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 10:55 AM, Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) wrote: > The intent for both timers is: > > WaitDTLS: This timer is used to make sure that the DTLS session is > established within the required timeframe. If the DTLS session isn't > setup, perhaps because either party is not responding, then the timer > will trigger and the state will change. > > WaitJoin: Once the DTLS session has been established, we need to > protect against a WTP that opts to NOT send a Join Request. So in this > instance, the WaitJoin would trigger, and the state would once more change. > > PatC > > -----Original Message----- > From: Yong Zhang [mailto:yozhang@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 9:54 AM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] WaitDTLS/WaitJoin timers > indraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-specification-10.txt > > WaitDTLS by its name should be DTLS session setup related, but this > spec. (6.1/2) requires it deactivated after the Join Req/Resp are > received. > > WaitJoin seems no use in this case?? > > Also the WaitDTLS timer is started earlier than WaitJoin timer, > however, the default value for these two timers (4.7.15/16) are all > 60s. if WaitJoin has some other use, it need to have a less value than > WaitDTLS to work. > > Yong > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Thu Jun 26 05:11:57 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72C413A6A65 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:11:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.549 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fD7fyRYTlxPb for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:11:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59EF13A6A70 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:11:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB7B243262F for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:11:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 673D944013A for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:11:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37A6534AC0B1 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:11:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F55F34AC10B for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:11:47 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.71 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:11:47 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,708,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="60513597" Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Jun 2008 05:11:47 -0700 Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com (sj-core-4.cisco.com [171.68.223.138]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5QCBkg5027991; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:11:47 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5QCBk2j018780; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:11:46 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:11:46 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:11:46 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDD77A@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: New Issue 107: ImageDataStartTimer is not specified correctly Thread-Index: AcjVXSc7chf0ML0RSaey8j8lPH28VwCKEphA References: From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Yong Zhang" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Jun 2008 12:11:46.0697 (UTC) FILETIME=[CE02C790:01C8D785] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] New Issue 107: ImageDataStartTimer is not specified correctly X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Yes, I believe you are once again correct. The issue was created when the Image Data Request/Response became bi-directional, and the timers were not adjusted correctly. The proper fix is, I believe, to make use of the timer on both the AC and the WTP: 2.3. CAPWAP State Machine Definition [...] Image Data to Image Data (j): The Image Data state is used by the WTP and the AC during the firmware download phase. WTP: The WTP enters the Image Data state when it receives an Image Data Response message indicating that the AC has more data to send. This state transition also occurs when the WTP receives the subsequent Image Data Requests, at which time it resets the ImageDataStartTimer time to ensure it receives the next expected Image Data Request from the AC. AC: This state transition occurs when the AC receives the Image Data Response message from the WTP while already in the Image Data state. The AC disables the ImageDataStartTimer timer. Image Data to Reset (k): This state transition is used to reset the DTLS connection prior to restarting the WTP after an image download. WTP: When an image download completes, or if the ImageDataStartTimer timer expires, the WTP enters the Reset state. The WTP MAY also transition to this state upon receiving an Image Data Response message from the AC (see Section 9.1.2) indicating a failure. AC: The AC enters the Reset state when an error occurs during the image download process or if the ImageDataStartTimer timer expires. 4.7.8. ImageDataStartTimer The number of seconds the AC or WTP will wait for its peer to transmit the Image Data Request. PatC -----Original Message----- From: Yong Zhang [mailto:yozhang@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 11:15 AM To: capwap@frascone.com Subject: [Capwap] ImageDataStartTimer indraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-specification-10.txt I have a question on this ImageDataStartTimer. What's the purpose of it? Is it used to define the AC waiting time for the first WTP image data req after it sends the join resp? After the first image data req is received from WTP, this timer will be no use any more after the AC start image data push to WTP? Refer to figure 4/6 in chapter 9, the WTP will only send the first image data req message, then it will receive image data req from AC, and reply with image data resp. Page 24 Join to Image Data (f): AC: ImageDataStartTimer is started after the AC receives the Image Data Request message from the WTP Page 25 Image Data to Image Data (j):AC This state transition occurs when the AC receives the Image Data Request message from the WTP while already in the Image Data state. The AC resets the ImageDataStartTimer timer. Here you want to say the first Image data req from WTP, or the image data response from WTP for AC's image data req? If it is the first one, there is no image data req from WTP when the FSM is in Image Data state. Reset timer is the timer to be restarted or canceled? Thanks! Yong In this spec., most of req messages are send by WTP. The image data req is an exception, which is mainly used by AC. _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Thu Jun 26 05:13:27 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD6353A6A70 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:13:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.553 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.553 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.046, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nhq7Lew8RAKP for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:13:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2BAB3A6A0E for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:13:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 404B0432643 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:13:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54CD6440144 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:13:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E8A534AC110 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:13:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 578B334AC109 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:13:21 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.70 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:13:21 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,708,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="45029916" Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Jun 2008 05:13:21 -0700 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5QCDJOU028878; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:13:19 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5QCDJER019592; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:13:19 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:13:19 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:13:18 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDD77B@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] Last Call on Protocol Spec Changes (Margaret Wasserman) Thread-Index: AcjW2ITXWUZJI0yhTCC+6VLoTH3/AgArW8bA References: From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Yong Zhang" , , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Jun 2008 12:13:19.0336 (UTC) FILETIME=[053A5E80:01C8D786] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Capwap] Last Call on Protocol Spec Changes (Margaret Wasserman) X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Yes, my apologies Yong, I am on vacation this week. I believe I have caught up to all of your questions/comments, some of which were genuine issues wit hthe spec. PatC -----Original Message----- From: Yong Zhang [mailto:yozhang@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 8:31 AM To: margaret@thingmagic.com; capwap@frascone.com Subject: Re: [Capwap] Last Call on Protocol Spec Changes (Margaret Wasserman) Margaret, I have send some questions on draft-10 to this list recently, and they are not answered. I found a new error in page 30: Reset to DTLS Teardown(s). In here, it should be WTP tx and AC rx the Reset response. Chapter 2.3.1 CAPWAP Protocol State Transitions is used to give a detailed definition of the FSM, or it just list the important part. I found something are missing. For example, it does not tell you what the AC state will be after the image download is finished. The event that triggers the transition from Image data to Reset does not have a case of successful download. Join to Image Data (f): WTP will init the EchoInterval timer. Is it needed? In the image data state, AC will push the image to WTP, and the channel will have messages. Thanks! Yong _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Thu Jun 26 05:23:07 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD5BD3A6A0E for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:23:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.556 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.556 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.043, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4u1vwtL1tFMJ for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:23:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 028203A695C for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:23:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FCA8432788 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:23:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63A1A440148 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:23:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 346F034AC11A for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:23:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17BB134AC109 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:23:00 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.72 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:23:00 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,708,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="83432045" Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Jun 2008 05:19:37 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5QCJOMP007592; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:19:24 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5QCJOmE025635; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:19:24 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:19:24 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:19:23 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDD77C@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] AD review for draft-ietf-capwap-dhc-ac-option-01 Thread-Index: AcjVSb5m79FCQhzARE6FJVf6UGxbEQCPMzjA References: From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Jun 2008 12:19:24.0172 (UTC) FILETIME=[DEAFECC0:01C8D786] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Capwap] AD review for draft-ietf-capwap-dhc-ac-option-01 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com All, While I have created three separate tracker issues for the issues listed below (108, 109 and 110, respectively), I am comfortable with all of the proposed changes, so I will not bother to create separate threads to track each in the mailing list. I do not believe there are any real technical changes, and even T1 does not change the behavior of the WTP in any meaningful way. So I will mark these three issues as resolved, and will reopen if anyone objects. I don't mind resubmitting these drafts now to avoid receiving the same comments during IETF/IESG review, but will let the chairs decide. PatC -----Original Message----- From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 8:57 AM To: capwap@frascone.com Subject: [Capwap] AD review for draft-ietf-capwap-dhc-ac-option-01 This is the AD review for draft-ietf-capwap-dhc-ac-option-01. The document is quite simple and in good shape. I have only a small number of comments (grouped in Technical and Editorial) which I suggest to treat as Last Call comments. If I do not hear any objections I will send this document to IETF Last Call. Thanks and Regards, Dan T1. In the Security Considerations section the following text looks to me quite weak in describing the implication of the security vulnerabilities of the DHCP-based discovery option: . Therefore, the options defined in this document are not the only methods used to determine which AC a WTP should connect to. It may be better to be more assertive here, on the lines of something like: . Therefore, in security sensitive environments the options defined in this document SHOULD NOT be the only methods used to determine which AC a WTP should connect to. E1. The Intended Status is not mentioned in the document header. Needs to add Intended Status: Proposed Standard (if approved) E2. It is not necessary to use capitalized MUST notation when describing the IANA actions in the IANA considerations section. _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Thu Jun 26 05:33:42 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CFF63A6942 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:33:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.559 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.559 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.040, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Mxp1+QpueFgI for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:33:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 610883A6ABC for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:33:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB7CC432783 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:33:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0349C4401ED for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:33:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31D1C34AC10B for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:33:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69E4834AC11E for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:33:35 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.71 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:33:35 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,708,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="60520587" Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Jun 2008 05:33:35 -0700 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5QCXZxL026796; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:33:35 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5QCXZkj002082; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:33:35 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:33:35 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:33:34 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDD781@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] AD review ofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 Thread-Index: AcjVNGCAuSImkNOHQlu4FZuj/YyaPACVGyOQ References: From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Jun 2008 12:33:35.0109 (UTC) FILETIME=[D9E29B50:01C8D788] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Capwap] AD review ofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Thanks Dan. I have loaded all of these issues in tracker, and will be dealing with each of them in a separate e-mail thread. PatC -----Original Message----- From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 6:24 AM To: capwap@frascone.com Subject: [Capwap] AD review ofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 Here is the AD review of draft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06. Although the document looks stable and in pretty good shape, there are a number of issues that need to be fixed or seem unclear, so a new I-D revision seems to be necessary before sending the document to IETF Last Call. I have divided my comments into Technical and Editorial. Regards, Dan ------------------------------- T1. Section 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 - What version of IEEE 802.1X is this document supporting? I believe that this needs to be clarified, as IEEE 802.1X is currently under revision, and the document needs to be included as a Normative reference. T2. Section 4, definition of WLAN ID bitmap This field is to be set to zero for unicast packets and is unused if the WTP is not providing IEEE 802.11 encryption. This being a bitmap, is the intention to say 'set to all zero'? T3. What is the encoding of the Capabilities or Capability field (see also E6)? T4. Section 6.1 - what is the format and length of the SSID field? T5. Section 6.3 - why length = 3? T6. Section 6.6 - should not length be >=3? (RadioID + WLANID + Flags at minimum) T7. Section 6.10 - the definition of how the field Band supported is codified is confusing. First a three bit integer value is mentioned, but then the explanation seems to indicate it's a bit mask T8. Section 6.12 - the length should be 40 T9. Section 6.16 - for all statistics counters in this message - explain 1. do they start counting from 0 at initialization? What is the behavior when the device loses power? What is the behavior when they reach maximal value? Minimal interval between two rollover events T10. Section 6.23 - Country Code Special attention is required with use of this field, as implementations which take action based on this field could violate regulatory requirements. Some regulatory bodies do permit configuration of the country code under certain restrictions, such as the FCC, when WTPs are certified as Software Defined Radios. I do not know what can be done with this text from a technical (implementation or processing) point of view. What 'special attention' means? What can an implementation know about regulatory restrictions? And what 'certain restrictions' mean? I suggest to reconsider if this text is needed and if it is clarify if there are any technical impacts or move it to a separate note or subsection. E1. It is recommended to avoid mentioning references in Abstract sections. The current Abstract section mentions [3], I suggest to remove this. E2. Terminology - The definition of a Station (STA) differs from the one in [3]. Is it there that it should extended to describe the presence of a MAC and a PHY, or is it here it is unnecessarily verbose? E3. There are a lot of acronyms and terms mostly from the IEEE 802.11 realm that are neither expanded, not explained - RSN, WMM, EDCA, OFDM are only part of them. I suggest to expand the terminology section to add them E4. Section 4, page 19, Data rate - s/The data rate field is a 16 bit unsigned value. The contents of the field is set to 10 times the data rate in Mbps of the packet received by the WTP. /The data rate field is a 16 bit unsigned value expressing the data rate of the packets received by the WTP in units of 0.1 Mbps./ E5. Section 6 - for consistency it looks like the IEEE 802.11 Message Element / Type Value table should be a numbered figure. E6. Section 6.1 - is the field named 'Capabilities' as in the diagram or 'Capability' as in the description? E7. Section 6.2 - Antenna Selection should be represented in the diagram as N x 8 bit fields. Maybe the diagram is meant to say that padding is applied to 32-bit multiple in this case, but this should be clearly described, if this is the case. E8. Section 6.6 - the 6 Flags bits should rather be named Reserved Bits. E9. Section 6.13 - more information should be included about the supported rates syntax and length (even if the reference to the MIB document in [2] is provided E10. Section 6.14 - IEEE 802.1P tag is three bits - why is the 802.1P Precedence Tag two octets? And why is it called Precedence Tag and not Priority Tag (same comment for 6.20, 6.22)? E11. Section 6.23 - Document ISO/IEC 3166- 1 should be made a Normative Reference E12 - Section 6.25 - is radio type a bitmask? Say clearly so. No need to say anything about the value for all four radio types _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Thu Jun 26 05:42:26 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAB123A6AC7 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:42:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.561 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.561 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.038, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p7FDX+aEIVbS for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:42:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 258103A6A99 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:42:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79CA443264A for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:42:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B7A144014C for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:42:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 010F634AC11E for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:42:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E337634AC109 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:42:17 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.72 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:42:17 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,708,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="83437656" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Jun 2008 05:42:17 -0700 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5QCgHHm027726 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:42:17 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5QCgHIS009416 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:42:17 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:42:17 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:42:17 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDD782@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: AD review ofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E1 Thread-Index: AcjXihGIKyWOv4UoQZCsmy//LhTCrw== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Jun 2008 12:42:17.0611 (UTC) FILETIME=[115215B0:01C8D78A] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] AD review ofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E1 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com The AD review comment was: E1. It is recommended to avoid mentioning references in Abstract sections. The current Abstract section mentions [3], I suggest to remove this. I can certainly make this change, but I would like to note that the base protocol also includes references in the abstract. I will therefore need to make a similar change in that spec. I will create a separate issue for that spec. To fix this issue, I have moved the offending sentence to the introduction section: Abstract Wireless LAN product architectures have evolved from single autonomous access points to systems consisting of a centralized Access Controller (AC) and Wireless Termination Points (WTPs). The general goal of centralized control architectures is to move access control, including user authentication and authorization, mobility management and radio management from the single access point to a centralized controller. This specification defines the Control And Provisioning of Wireless Access Points (CAPWAP) Protocol Binding Specification for use with the IEEE 802.11 Wireless Local Area Network protocol. 1. Introduction This specification defines the Control And Provisioning of Wireless Access Points (CAPWAP) Protocol Binding Specification for use with the IEEE 802.11 Wireless Local Area Network protocol. The CAPWAP Protocol Specification is defined separately [I-D.ietf-capwap-protocol-specification]. Use of CAPWAP control message fields, new control messages and message elements are defined. The minimum required definitions for a binding-specific Statistics message element, Station message element, and WTP Radio Information message element are included. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Thu Jun 26 05:46:57 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11E943A6949 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:46:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.564 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.564 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.035, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YSsvOnWa9-Bx for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:46:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24FC83A67FE for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:46:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 783B043264A for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:46:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26861440093 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:46:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C528E34AC109 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:46:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C2F134AC0C7 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:46:49 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.71 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:46:49 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,708,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="60524358" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Jun 2008 05:45:48 -0700 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5QCjmGG032708 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:45:48 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5QCjCqq011687 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:45:48 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:45:27 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:45:27 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDD785@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: AD review ofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 T2 Thread-Index: AcjXioKl8y/QAqrlQmegB4JVbAQYGg== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Jun 2008 12:45:28.0027 (UTC) FILETIME=[82D142B0:01C8D78A] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] AD review ofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 T2 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com The AD Review comment is: T2. Section 4, definition of WLAN ID bitmap This field is to be set to zero for unicast packets and is unused if the WTP is not providing IEEE 802.11 encryption. This being a bitmap, is the intention to say 'set to all zero'? Yes, this is correct, and I have made the change below: WLAN ID bitmap: This bit field indicates the WLAN ID (see Section 6.1) on which the WTP will transmit the included frame. For instance, if a multicast packet is to be transmitted on WLANs 1 and 3, bits 1 and 3 of this field would be enabled. This field is to be set to all zeroes for unicast packets and is unused if the WTP is not providing IEEE 802.11 encryption. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Thu Jun 26 09:49:12 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A14D3A69C9 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 09:49:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.201 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.398, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NyS1GO7QVZAk for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 09:49:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F26143A6774 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 09:49:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 699F51C40FBA for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 09:49:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BC4D4401F7 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 09:48:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C773E34AC117 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 09:48:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4528234AC132 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 09:48:53 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Sender first seen 9 days 22:45:16 ago / dynamic or unknown reverse DNS) Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 09:48:52 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,709,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="112720644" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 26 Jun 2008 12:48:50 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,709,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="224652478" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 26 Jun 2008 12:48:49 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:48:46 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDD785@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] AD reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 T2 Thread-Index: AcjXioKl8y/QAqrlQmegB4JVbAQYGgAIfXQA References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDD785@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] AD reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 T2 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 3:45 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] AD > reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 T2 > > The AD Review comment is: > T2. Section 4, definition of WLAN ID bitmap > > This field is to be set to zero for unicast packets and is > unused if the WTP is not providing IEEE 802.11 encryption. > > This being a bitmap, is the intention to say 'set to all zero'? > > Yes, this is correct, and I have made the change below: > > > WLAN ID bitmap: This bit field indicates the WLAN ID (see > Section 6.1) on which the WTP will transmit the > included frame. > For instance, if a multicast packet is to be transmitted on > WLANs 1 and 3, bits 1 and 3 of this field would be enabled. > This field is to be set to all zeroes for unicast > packets and is > unused if the WTP is not providing IEEE 802.11 encryption. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Thu Jun 26 09:53:04 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0F1B3A6A42 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 09:53:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.215 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.215 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.384, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oAPG4MmhWLO7 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 09:53:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 729F63A69C9 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 09:53:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0CDB1C40F93 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 09:53:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D42454401F9 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 09:52:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A563234AC014 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 09:52:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A712D34AC073 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 09:52:51 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com (nj300815-nj-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.12.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 09:52:51 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,709,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="125045799" Received: from unknown (HELO nj300815-nj-erheast.avaya.com) ([198.152.6.5]) by nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 26 Jun 2008 12:52:50 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,709,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="217897218" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by nj300815-nj-erheast-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 26 Jun 2008 12:52:50 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:52:45 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDD782@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] AD reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E1 Thread-Index: AcjXihGIKyWOv4UoQZCsmy//LhTCrwAIpf2Q References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDD782@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] AD reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E1 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK with me - sorry to have missed this in the base protocol document, yes, would be good to fix there as well to a reference quote free text. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 3:42 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] AD > reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E1 > > The AD review comment was: > > E1. It is recommended to avoid mentioning references in > Abstract sections. The > current Abstract section mentions [3], I suggest to remove this. > > I can certainly make this change, but I would like to note > that the base protocol also includes references in the > abstract. I will therefore need to make a similar change in > that spec. I will create a separate issue for that spec. > > To fix this issue, I have moved the offending sentence to the > introduction section: > > > Abstract > > Wireless LAN product architectures have evolved from single > autonomous access points to systems consisting of a centralized > Access Controller (AC) and Wireless Termination Points (WTPs). The > general goal of centralized control architectures is to move access > control, including user authentication and authorization, mobility > management and radio management from the single access point to a > centralized controller. > > This specification defines the Control And Provisioning of Wireless > Access Points (CAPWAP) Protocol Binding Specification for use with > the IEEE 802.11 Wireless Local Area Network protocol. > > 1. Introduction > > This specification defines the Control And Provisioning of Wireless > Access Points (CAPWAP) Protocol Binding Specification for use with > the IEEE 802.11 Wireless Local Area Network protocol. The CAPWAP > Protocol Specification is defined separately > [I-D.ietf-capwap-protocol-specification]. Use of CAPWAP control > message fields, new control messages and message elements are > defined. The minimum required definitions for a binding-specific > Statistics message element, Station message element, and WTP Radio > Information message element are included. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From c3n@lamusadesign.com Thu Jun 26 18:24:46 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC8003A688B; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:24:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -69.791 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-69.791 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_95=3, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, FS_REPLICA=0.994, HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC=4.295, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_SPEC_REPLICA_OBFU=1.812, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_NOV5A=1.062, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e8U+dY3oaPtZ; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:24:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 137-213-223-201.adsl.terra.cl (137-213-223-201.adsl.terra.cl [201.223.213.137]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 12ED83A679F; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:24:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: 234.4.160.63 by smtp.201.223.213.137; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:24:36 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Jennie Crocker" Reply-To: "Jennie Crocker" To: atompub-archive@megatron.ietf.org Subject: Classic timepieces replicas Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:24:36 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit If the only thing standing between you and a luxurious Cartier watch is money, then today is your lucky day! Diamond Replicas, the world-famous replica watches dealer, is offering a 15% discount during these spring months for two or more watches, making their whole Cartier collection even more affordable. http://lufopynalyt63.blogspot.com/ As you are probably aware of, Diamond Replicas has one of the most extensive collections of Cartier replica watches in the whole wide web. Who cares if they are not legitimate? These replicas are of such high quality that not even a connoisseur would be able to distinguish them from an original Cartier. And with their online delivery guarantee you will be enjoying your new watch in just a couple of days! So, what are you waiting for? Visit Diamond Replicas today! http://lufopynalyt63.blogspot.com/ From c.troiano@oliver.it Thu Jun 26 22:23:21 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42C243A67D7; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 22:23:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -87.188 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-87.188 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, DNS_FROM_RFC_BOGUSMX=1.482, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_SPEC_REPLICA_OBFU=1.812, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_NOV5A=1.062, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m14MJjhQKEl8; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 22:23:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tdev133-246.codetel.net.do (unknown [190.80.133.246]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E5AD83A6778; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 22:22:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: 132.187.130.206 by smtp.190.80.133.246; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 01:22:52 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Trisha Seay" Reply-To: "Trisha Seay" To: avt@ietf.org Subject: Save thousands... no one will know Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 01:22:52 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Did you watch the last 007 flick, Casino Royale? If you did, you probably noticed that all throughout the movie, James Bond wears an spectacularly beautiful Omega watch... and he even brags about it! How would you like to be wearing that same exact model watch? The good news is that YOU can! Because now, you don't have to spend thousands of dollars to sport an Omega watch! When you visit Diamond Replicas, you will be able to browse through dozens of Omega replica watches, and pick the one of your dreams for just a couple of hundred dollars. Our watches are of such undeniably high quality, and offer such superior performance, that you'll fall in love with them, and what's best: stay in love with them for years to come! Come inside Diamond Replicas and pick your new Omega today! http://zapokazofev48.blogspot.com/ From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Fri Jun 27 05:15:23 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA08A3A6B7E for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:15:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.566 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.566 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.033, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bXRfXrS7StX8 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:15:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CEF73A6B7C for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:15:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C461B43214B for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:15:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CF1744012F for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:15:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48B9B34AC0AE for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:15:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38CEB34AC017 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:15:13 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.117 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:15:13 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,715,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="119199345" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Jun 2008 05:15:08 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5RCF86J018188 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:15:08 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5RCF8cT010673 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 12:15:08 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:15:08 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:15:08 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDDCC8@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: AD review ofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 T1 Thread-Index: AcjYT3AgQ2/4GRDXS6OXyGY9Kd4vjw== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Jun 2008 12:15:08.0649 (UTC) FILETIME=[70CBF590:01C8D84F] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] AD review ofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 T1 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com The AD review comment is: T1. Section 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 - What version of IEEE 802.1X is this document supporting? I believe that this needs to be clarified, as IEEE 802.1X is currently under revision, and the document needs to be included as a Normative reference. That is correct, so I am adding the proper references. I also just now noticed that we were referring to version 1999 of the 802.11 spec, which is incorrect. We had agreed that we would use the 2007 version of the spec. I am therefore also making that change. 2.1.1. Split MAC [...] All remaining IEEE 802.11 MAC management frames are supported on the AC, including the Association Request frame which allows the AC to be involved in the access policy enforcement portion of the IEEE 802.11 protocol. The IEEE 802.1X [IEEE.802-1X.2004] and IEEE RSNA Key Management [IEEE.802-11I.2004] functions are also located on the AC. This implies that the AAA client also resides on the AC. [...] Upon receiving data frames from the AC, the WTP is responsible for adding the FCS field, and populating the field as described in [IEEE.802-11.2007]. 2.1.2. Local MAC [...] The IEEE 802.1X [IEEE.802-1X.2004] and IEEE RSNA Key Management [IEEE.802-11I.2004] functions reside in the AC. Therefore, the WTP MUST forward all IEEE 802.1X/RSNA Key Management frames to the AC and forward the corresponding responses to the station. This implies that the AAA client also resides on the AC. 12.1. Normative References [...] [IEEE.802-11.2007] "Information technology - Telecommunications and information exchange between systems - Local and metropolitan area networks - Specific requirements - Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) specifications", IEEE Standard 802.11, 2007, < http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/download/ 802.11-2007.pdf>. [IEEE.802-1X.2004] "Information technology - Telecommunications and information exchange between systems - Local and metropolitan area networks - Specific requirements - Port- Based Network Access Control", IEEE Standard 802.1X, 2004, . PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Fri Jun 27 05:24:17 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D08A3A6B73 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:24:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.567 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.567 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.032, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fzso7Tt0l2tn for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:24:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6532D28C182 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:24:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A37D43223F for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:24:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3E9044015A for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:24:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E8B434AC108 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:24:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2074A34AC103 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:24:08 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.70 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:24:08 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,715,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="45651606" Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Jun 2008 05:24:07 -0700 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5RCO7Pa014247 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:24:07 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5RCO7xD011815 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 12:24:07 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:24:07 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:24:07 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDDCC9@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: AD review ofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 T10 Thread-Index: AcjYULG+FMCE3zM6SzOSd7po5Es7hA== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Jun 2008 12:24:07.0770 (UTC) FILETIME=[B2234BA0:01C8D850] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] AD review ofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 T10 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com The AD Review comment is: T10. Section 6.23 - Country Code Special attention is required with use of this field, as implementations which take action based on this field could violate regulatory requirements. Some regulatory bodies do permit configuration of the country code under certain restrictions, such as the FCC, when WTPs are certified as Software Defined Radios. I do not know what can be done with this text from a technical (implementation or processing) point of view. What 'special attention' means? What can an implementation know about regulatory restrictions? And what 'certain restrictions' mean? I suggest to reconsider if this text is needed and if it is clarify if there are any technical impacts or move it to a separate note or subsection. Well, I'm not quite sure how to handle your comment. The issue here is that some regulatory bodies, where WTP vendors will need to go to in order to certify their radios, do not allow the "country code" to be configurable. In these regulatory domains, the country code, and therefore the channels, transmit power and other parameters must be fixed and not modified by the end user. I also struggle with your comment on moving this to another section in the document as I believe it would end up getting lost. What if I were to modify the text to read instead: Some regulatory domains do not allow WTPs to have user configurable country codes, and require that it be a fixed value during the manufacturing process. Therefore, WTP vendors that wish to allow for the configuration of this field will need to validate this behavior during its radio certification process. Other WTP vendors may simply wish to treat this WTP configuration parameter as read-only. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Fri Jun 27 05:28:55 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C3A33A67F5 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:28:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.569 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.569 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.030, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KyEW0JGGCB-R for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:28:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 852673A67A7 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:28:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EE77431A66 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:28:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 882AA44015A for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:28:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 627BB34AC09E for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:28:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF5FA34AC0AE for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:28:49 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.72 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:28:49 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,715,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="83741682" Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Jun 2008 05:28:49 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5RCSn8j020382 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:28:49 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5RCSnEH021764 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 12:28:49 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:28:48 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:28:48 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDDCCC@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: AD review ofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 T8 Thread-Index: AcjYUVk6sdrT3gzNQP2PWCXSdnD//g== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Jun 2008 12:28:48.0871 (UTC) FILETIME=[59AFE770:01C8D851] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] AD review ofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 T8 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com The AD Review Comment is: T8. Section 6.12 - the length should be 40 Yes, that is correct. I have made the change. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Fri Jun 27 05:36:42 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85FAB3A6923 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:36:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.57 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.57 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.029, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N5h4KBFxx0qQ for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:36:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FE303A68B3 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:36:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60623432255 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:36:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B9F944015A for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:36:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2827334AC033 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:36:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21F1434AC063 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:36:36 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.70 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:36:35 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,715,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="45656422" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Jun 2008 05:36:05 -0700 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5RCa51Y013718 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:36:05 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5RCa5v7021937 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 12:36:05 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:36:05 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:36:03 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDDCCE@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: AD review ofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 T6 Thread-Index: AcjYUlzVEcbkw332R/2c0WJn38w4bg== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Jun 2008 12:36:05.0376 (UTC) FILETIME=[5DDD4800:01C8D852] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] AD review ofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 T6 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com The AD Review Comment is: T6. Section 6.6 - should not length be >=3? (RadioID + WLANID + Flags at minimum) Actually, it should be >=4, since a message element needs to be present. 6.6. IEEE 802.11 Information Element [...] Type: 1029 for IEEE 802.11 Information Element Length: >= 4 PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Fri Jun 27 05:39:03 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC56E3A67F5 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:39:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.572 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.572 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.027, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id joNucZHmrTyL for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:39:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A9973A67A7 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:39:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12124432217 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:39:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85A4444015A for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:39:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64A2D34AC104 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:39:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E1C234AC0DB for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:38:58 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.71 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:38:58 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,715,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="60928635" Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Jun 2008 05:38:57 -0700 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5RCcv3K002184 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:38:57 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5RCcvAE000897 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 12:38:57 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:38:57 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:38:55 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDDCCF@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: AD review ofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 T5 Thread-Index: AcjYUsM8QE7HiOVXScmNWATkZFXptw== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Jun 2008 12:38:57.0571 (UTC) FILETIME=[C4802730:01C8D852] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] AD review ofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 T5 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com The AD Review Comment is: T5. Section 6.3 - why length = 3? Actually, I believe you meant 6.4, and yes, it should have been 2, not 3. 6.4. IEEE 802.11 Delete WLAN [...] Type: 1027 for IEEE 802.11 Delete WLAN Length: 3 PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Fri Jun 27 05:46:37 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3F913A68CB for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:46:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.573 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.573 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.026, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0tYN7tI-DrcO for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:46:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF5633A67F5 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:46:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B45DF432604 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:46:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D5A644015A for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:46:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F7F834AC0DB for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:46:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7667834AC033 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:46:30 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.70 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:46:30 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,715,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="45660711" Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Jun 2008 05:46:30 -0700 Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com (sj-core-4.cisco.com [171.68.223.138]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5RCkU8m002924 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:46:30 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5RCkU3Q003233 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 12:46:30 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:46:29 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:46:28 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDDCD0@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: AD review ofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 T4 Thread-Index: AcjYU9EiViUkk3BvQHW0txtbRYynAw== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Jun 2008 12:46:30.0126 (UTC) FILETIME=[D23E90E0:01C8D853] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] AD review ofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 T4 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com The AD Review Comment is: T4. Section 6.1 - what is the format and length of the SSID field? Unfortunately, the standard is loose on the definition, other than the max length of the field, so I'm not sure that we can add any additional restrictions. The following text is the best we can do at this point: 6.1. IEEE 802.11 Add WLAN [...] SSID: The SSID attribute is the service set identifier that will be advertised by the WTP for this WLAN. The SSID field contains any ASCII character and MUST NOT exceed 32 octets in length, as defined in [IEEE.802-11.2007]. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Fri Jun 27 05:55:24 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D2603A683F for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:55:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.574 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.574 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.025, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GoPG9k9KBZGD for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:55:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F09A3A68B2 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:55:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D987B432619 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:55:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F122440101 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:55:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 336EE34AC104 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:55:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC7EB34AC10F for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:55:17 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.117 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:55:17 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,715,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="119215976" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Jun 2008 05:55:17 -0700 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5RCtEW6009531 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:55:14 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5RCtE2b014816 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 12:55:14 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:55:14 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:55:13 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDDCD1@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: AD review ofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 T7 Thread-Index: AcjYVQoi14yosJOWQ5eYjvnTVZ6/IQ== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Jun 2008 12:55:14.0254 (UTC) FILETIME=[0AA626E0:01C8D855] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] AD review ofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 T7 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com The AD Review Comment is: T7. Section 6.10 - the definition of how the field Band supported is codified is confusing. First a three bit integer value is mentioned, but then the explanation seems to indicate it's a bit mask Yes, the text was indeed confusing, and unfortunately, this is one area where the 2007 spec changed that we did not catch. So someone only implementing to the CAPWAP spec, and ignoring the IEEE spec would not have supported all of the bands (although I would question someone implementing 802.11 without at least referring to the standard itself, and already had a reference to help the implementor). In any case, the new text is: 6.10. IEEE 802.11 OFDM Control [...] Band Supported: The capability of the OFDM PHY implementation to operate in the three U-NII bands. The value of this field comes from the IEEE 802.11 dot11FrequencyBandsSupported MIB element (see [IEEE.802-11.2007]), coded as a bit field, whose values are: Bit 0 - capable of operating in the 5.15-5.25 GHz band Bit 1 - capable of operating in the 5.25-5.35 GHz band Bit 2 - capable of operating in the 5.725-5.825 GHz band Bit 3 - capable of operating in the 5.47-5.725 GHz band Bit 4 - capable of operating in the lower Japanese 5.25 GHz band Bit 5 - capable of operating in the 5.03-5.091 GHz band Bit 6 - capable of operating in the 4.94-4.99 GHz band For example, for an implementation capable of operating in the 5.15-5.35 GHz bands this attribute would take the value 3. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Fri Jun 27 06:02:02 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D857A3A68E7 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:02:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.575 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.575 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.024, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b42Bw1ymSVSP for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:02:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 031713A63EC for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:02:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8F2343264B for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:02:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80F68440101 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:01:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6332B34AC109 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:01:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F171234AC09E for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:01:56 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.117 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:01:56 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,715,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="119218867" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Jun 2008 06:01:56 -0700 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5RD1u36017917 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:01:56 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5RD1u55014244 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 13:01:56 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:01:56 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:01:55 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDDCD2@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: AD review ofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E2 Thread-Index: AcjYVfn0yznMeMVPQr61fpL+MELfig== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Jun 2008 13:01:56.0492 (UTC) FILETIME=[FA66CCC0:01C8D855] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] AD review ofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E2 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com The AD Review Comment is: E2. Terminology - The definition of a Station (STA) differs from the one in [3]. Is it there that it should extended to describe the presence of a MAC and a PHY, or is it here it is unnecessarily verbose? Well... Here we are being specific that in terms of the a STA in the 802.11 binding spec, the station must have a MAC and PHY that conforms to that standard. We can remove it if you believe it is unnecessary, but the base spec is pretty loose in its definition since we are being "wireless standard" agnostic. The two documents have different purposes. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Fri Jun 27 06:04:42 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6A523A684E for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:04:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.576 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.576 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.023, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nW3Ts0rWa0wG for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:04:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 283343A67A7 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:04:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04E444324D4 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:04:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A4744400B6 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:04:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0837C34AC08E for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:04:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 537EE34AC109 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:04:38 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.70 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:04:38 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,715,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="45669410" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Jun 2008 06:04:38 -0700 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5RD4cNG022764 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:04:38 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5RD4cMY016857 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 13:04:38 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:04:37 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:04:37 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDDCD5@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: AD review ofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E4 Thread-Index: AcjYVloNyxl07RCOQemw5MPo+7AHnA== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Jun 2008 13:04:37.0932 (UTC) FILETIME=[5AA096C0:01C8D856] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] AD review ofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E4 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com The AD Review Comment is: E4. Section 4, page 19, Data rate - s/The data rate field is a 16 bit unsigned value. The contents of the field is set to 10 times the data rate in Mbps of the packet received by the WTP. /The data rate field is a 16 bit unsigned value expressing the data rate of the packets received by the WTP in units of 0.1 Mbps./ I have made the recommended change. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Fri Jun 27 06:08:19 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D32A33A685D for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:08:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.577 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.577 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.022, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mS4CmkJ8AtXB for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:08:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 128363A63EC for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:08:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC06243264C for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:08:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B732E440122 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:08:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89AD834AC101 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:08:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 171AC34AC09E for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:08:09 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.70 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:08:09 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,715,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="45671973" Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Jun 2008 06:08:08 -0700 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5RD88jF004628 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:08:08 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5RD88YE027529 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 13:08:08 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:08:08 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:08:07 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDDCD7@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: AD review ofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E5 Thread-Index: AcjYVteILjzPZGMZRZ+AblBZkdED2Q== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Jun 2008 13:08:08.0187 (UTC) FILETIME=[D7F2F4B0:01C8D856] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] AD review ofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E5 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com The AD Review Comment is: E5. Section 6 - for consistency it looks like the IEEE 802.11 Message Element / Type Value table should be a numbered figure. I have made the requested change: 6. IEEE 802.11 Message Element Definitions The following IEEE 802.11 specific message elements are defined in this section. IEEE 802.11 Message Element Type Value IEEE 802.11 Add WLAN 1024 IEEE 802.11 Antenna 1025 IEEE 802.11 Assigned WTP BSSID 1026 IEEE 802.11 Delete WLAN 1027 IEEE 802.11 Direct Sequence Control 1028 IEEE 802.11 Information Element 1029 IEEE 802.11 MAC Operation 1030 IEEE 802.11 MIC Countermeasures 1031 IEEE 802.11 Multi-Domain Capability 1032 IEEE 802.11 OFDM Control 1033 IEEE 802.11 Rate Set 1034 IEEE 802.11 RSNA Error Report From Station 1035 IEEE 802.11 Station 1036 IEEE 802.11 Station QoS Profile 1037 IEEE 802.11 Station Session Key 1038 IEEE 802.11 Statistics 1039 IEEE 802.11 Supported Rates 1040 IEEE 802.11 Tx Power 1041 IEEE 802.11 Tx Power Level 1042 IEEE 802.11 Update Station QoS 1043 IEEE 802.11 Update WLAN 1044 IEEE 802.11 WTP Quality of Service 1045 IEEE 802.11 WTP Radio Configuration 1046 IEEE 802.11 WTP Radio Fail Alarm Indication 1047 IEEE 802.11 WTP Radio Information 1048 Figure 8: IEEE 802.11 Binding Message Elements PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Fri Jun 27 06:10:16 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BE1B3A6846 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:10:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.578 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.578 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.021, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fai36i1Qu+tH for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:10:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19D3D3A63EC for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:10:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2480432673 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:10:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A72E0440122 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:10:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88ADD34AC0C7 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:10:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DEDB34AC109 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:10:10 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.71 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:10:10 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,715,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="60937874" Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Jun 2008 06:10:01 -0700 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5RD9xAZ016939 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:09:59 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5RD9xN4022424 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 13:09:59 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:09:59 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:09:58 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDDCD8@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: AD review ofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E6 Thread-Index: AcjYVxmGkbu7TlU/QcesI8RGSg+LKQ== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Jun 2008 13:09:59.0387 (UTC) FILETIME=[1A3ABAB0:01C8D857] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] AD review ofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E6 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com The AD Review Comment is: E6. Section 6.1 - is the field named 'Capabilities' as in the diagram or 'Capability' as in the description? The proper name is 'Capability'. I have made the necessary changes in both the figure and the field description. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Fri Jun 27 06:17:38 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72DD83A684E for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:17:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.578 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.578 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.021, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yL+Z6+nbyKFM for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:17:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DF263A6846 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:17:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C757430709 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:17:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD89B440123 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:17:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D0E034AC0C7 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:17:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9C9F34AC10F for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:17:32 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.117 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:17:32 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,715,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="119225196" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Jun 2008 06:17:32 -0700 Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com (sj-core-3.cisco.com [171.68.223.137]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5RDHWjp013053 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:17:32 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5RDHWfU029904 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 13:17:32 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:17:32 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:17:31 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDDCDA@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: AD review ofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E7 Thread-Index: AcjYWCeyUy19egcRQ/2R1X4GOmE/dA== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Jun 2008 13:17:32.0372 (UTC) FILETIME=[283AC140:01C8D858] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] AD review ofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E7 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com The AD Review Comment is: E7. Section 6.2 - Antenna Selection should be represented in the diagram as N x 8 bit fields. Maybe the diagram is meant to say that padding is applied to 32-bit multiple in this case, but this should be clearly described, if this is the case. Yes, this was an error. The text has been modified to: 6.2. IEEE 802.11 Antenna [...] 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Radio ID | Diversity | Combiner | Antenna Cnt | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Antenna Selection... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ [...] Antenna Selection: One 8-bit antenna configuration value per antenna in the WTP, containing up to 255 antennas. The following values are supported: PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Fri Jun 27 06:20:27 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30C593A6846 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:20:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.579 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.579 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.020, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aIkJAsFSkDB2 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:20:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D79A3A63EC for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:20:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 251454326AE for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:20:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F6F4440122 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:20:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68A1434AC0A8 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:20:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F1F334AC0EB for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:20:14 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (64.102.122.148 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:20:13 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,715,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="12443665" Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Jun 2008 09:20:11 -0400 Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com (sj-core-4.cisco.com [171.68.223.138]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5RDKBtn032757 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 09:20:11 -0400 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5RDKBPY015006 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 13:20:11 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:20:11 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:20:10 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDDCDB@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: AD review ofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E8 Thread-Index: AcjYWIYywmPZ7pUqR7CYhQD28Zzvcw== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Jun 2008 13:20:11.0037 (UTC) FILETIME=[86CD1CD0:01C8D858] Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] AD review ofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E8 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com The AD Review Comment is: E8. Section 6.6 - the 6 Flags bits should rather be named Reserved Bits. I have made the requested change. 6.6. IEEE 802.11 Information Element [...] 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Radio ID | WLAN ID |B|P| Reserved |Info Element... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ [...] Reserved: All implementations complying with this protocol MUST set to zero any bits that are reserved in the version of the protocol supported by that implementation. Receivers MUST ignore all bits not defined for the version of the protocol they support. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Fri Jun 27 06:28:13 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E1C83A6918 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:28:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.58 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.019, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N77-Sln8kNfe for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:28:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F7253A68EA for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:28:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9ED721C41010 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:27:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 225E5440134 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:27:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEBA534AC0FE for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:27:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F22B34AC00F for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:27:14 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.71 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:27:14 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,715,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="60944278" Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Jun 2008 06:27:14 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5RDRD7n003827 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:27:13 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5RDRDhS012129 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 13:27:13 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:27:13 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:27:12 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDDCDE@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: AD review ofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E9 Thread-Index: AcjYWYIq+xPUADciSOOM8g3yRn4K8g== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Jun 2008 13:27:13.0794 (UTC) FILETIME=[82C8B620:01C8D859] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] AD review ofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E9 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com The AD Review Comment is: E9. Section 6.13 - more information should be included about the supported rates syntax and length (even if the reference to the MIB document in [2] is provided OK, well I want to try to avoid having to copy part of the 802.11 spec into the capwap spec, because to really be comprehensive, this will require us to include tables, etc. So in the end, the implementor will need to refer to the standard for completeness. In any case, I can add some more clarify, and propose the following: 6.13. IEEE 802.11 Station [...] Supported Rates: The variable length field containing the supported rates to be used with the station, as found in the IEEE 802.11 dot11OperationalRateSet MIB element (see [IEEE.802-11.2007]). This field MUST NOT exceed 126 octets and specifies the set of data rates at which the station may transmit data, where each octet represents a data rate. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Fri Jun 27 06:36:58 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC4963A6896 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:36:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.28 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.28 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.281, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_31=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 976-hTJPcmKB for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:36:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE6533A67EF for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:36:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAF5E43275B for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:37:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8743444013C for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:36:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EC7A34AC097 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:36:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 135CE34AC032 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:36:48 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.71 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:36:48 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,715,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="60947699" Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Jun 2008 06:36:47 -0700 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5RDalwl028087 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:36:47 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5RDalE6016567 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 13:36:47 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:36:47 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:36:46 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDDCE4@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: AD review ofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E10 Thread-Index: AcjYWtgtaEqlkrigRIm+/e4lD/SVVA== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Jun 2008 13:36:47.0660 (UTC) FILETIME=[D8D5B6C0:01C8D85A] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] AD review ofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E10 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com The AD Review Comment is: E10. Section 6.14 - IEEE 802.1P tag is three bits - why is the 802.1P Precedence Tag two octets? And why is it called Precedence Tag and not Priority Tag (same comment for 6.20, 6.22)? I want to note first off that while I agree, it does change the packet format, so this is the first change that actually causes a backward compatibility issue, but in this case I believe it is necessary. 6.14. IEEE 802.11 Station QoS Profile [...] 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | MAC Address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | MAC Address | 802.1P Priority Tag | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |802.1P Priority Tag +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ [...] 802.1P Priority Tag: The maximum 802.1P priority value that the WTP will allow in the TID field in the extended 802.11e QOS Data header. 6.20. IEEE 802.11 Update Station QoS [...] 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Radio ID | MAC Address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | MAC Address | DSCP Tag | 802.1P Tag | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 802.1P Tag | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ [...] 802.1P Tag: The 802.1P priority value to use if packets are to be IEEE 802.1P tagged. 6.22. IEEE 802.11 WTP Quality of Service [...] 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Queue Depth | CWMin | CWMax | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | CWMax | AIFS | Dot1P Tag | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Dot1P Tag | DSCP Tag | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ [...] Dot1P Tag: The 802.1P priority value to use if packets are to be 802.1P tagged. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Fri Jun 27 06:46:39 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 787D33A685D for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:46:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.572 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.572 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.027, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dqy55S9YU94Y for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:46:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 915A53A6816 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:46:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 867564328FA for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:46:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BA5B440134 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:45:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D797334AC00F for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:45:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C55634AC072 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:45:56 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.117 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:45:56 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,715,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="119235135" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Jun 2008 06:45:56 -0700 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5RDjuV1025674 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:45:56 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5RDjuOu001836 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 13:45:56 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:45:55 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:45:54 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDDCEA@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: AD review ofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E12 Thread-Index: AcjYXB8N6fhO5PLzQhqjKMNewOE7Tw== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Jun 2008 13:45:56.0011 (UTC) FILETIME=[1FAD6FB0:01C8D85C] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] AD review ofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E12 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com The AD Review Comment is: E12 - Section 6.25 - is radio type a bitmask? Say clearly so. No need to say anything about the value for all four radio types Yes, I have made a small change to the text as follows: 6.25. IEEE 802.11 WTP Radio Information [...] Radio Type: The type of radio present. Note this is a bit field which is used to specify support for more than a single type of PHY/MAC. The following bit values are supported: 1 - 802.11b: An IEEE 802.11b radio. 2 - 802.11a: An IEEE 802.11a radio. 4 - 802.11g: An IEEE 802.11g radio. 8 - 802.11n: An IEEE 802.11n radio. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Fri Jun 27 06:49:12 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C43E03A6980 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:49:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.573 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.573 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.026, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rTun8EWn3bgK for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:49:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A27A23A6972 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:49:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 949E94328CB for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:49:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7A39440134 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:49:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C486D34AC097 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:49:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2870D34AC002 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:49:05 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (64.102.122.148 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:49:02 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,715,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="12448424" Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Jun 2008 09:48:53 -0400 Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com (sj-core-4.cisco.com [171.68.223.138]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5RDlufu003545 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 09:48:52 -0400 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5RDewWK021783 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 13:42:35 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:42:34 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 06:42:33 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDDCE8@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: AD review ofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E11 Thread-Index: AcjYW6cdHVFCQdwUR/+9sDJozHllDA== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Jun 2008 13:42:34.0860 (UTC) FILETIME=[A7C83AC0:01C8D85B] Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] AD review ofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E11 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com The AD Review Comment is: E11. Section 6.23 - Document ISO/IEC 3166- 1 should be made a Normative Reference OK, I have made the requested change: 6.23. IEEE 802.11 WTP Radio Configuration [...] Country Code: [...] The country codes can be found in [ISO.3166.1984]. 12.1. Normative References [...] [ISO.3166.1984] International Organization for Standardization, "Codes for the Representation of Names of Countries", ISO Standard 3166, 1984. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Fri Jun 27 07:14:10 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F04A3A68DC for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 07:14:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_31=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7CBGXiU58Afh for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 07:14:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B374F3A685D for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 07:14:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADE9B433130 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 07:14:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6110C440142 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 07:14:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2DB334AC108 for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 07:14:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 227CF34AC06B for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 07:14:03 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from webmail6.dreamhost.com (sd-green-dreamhost-133.dreamhost.com [208.97.187.133]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 07:14:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from webmail.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by webmail6.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC79277363; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 07:14:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 64.26.171.81 (SquirrelMail authenticated user jeff@joslin.ca) by webmail.dreamhost.com with HTTP; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 07:14:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <2791.64.26.171.81.1214576042.squirrel@webmail.dreamhost.com> In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDDCE4@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDDCE4@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 07:14:02 -0700 (PDT) From: jeff@joslin.ca To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.10a MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: capwap@frascone.com Subject: Re: [Capwap] AD review ofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E10 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com That should be "IEEE 802.1p", the lower-case suffix indicating that it is not a free-standing standard but rather it modifies a base standard (802.1D in this case). Jeff > The AD Review Comment is: > > E10. Section 6.14 - IEEE 802.1P tag is three bits - why is the 802.1P > > Precedence Tag two octets? And why is it called Precedence Tag and > not > Priority Tag (same comment for 6.20, 6.22)? > > I want to note first off that while I agree, it does change the packet > format, > so this is the first change that actually causes a backward > compatibility > issue, but in this case I believe it is necessary. > > > 6.14. IEEE 802.11 Station QoS Profile > [...] > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | MAC Address | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | MAC Address | 802.1P Priority Tag | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > |802.1P Priority Tag > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > [...] > 802.1P Priority Tag: The maximum 802.1P priority value that the WTP > will allow in the TID field in the extended 802.11e QOS Data > header. > > 6.20. IEEE 802.11 Update Station QoS > [...] > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Radio ID | MAC Address | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | MAC Address | DSCP Tag | 802.1P Tag | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | 802.1P Tag | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > [...] > 802.1P Tag: The 802.1P priority value to use if packets are to be > IEEE 802.1P tagged. > > 6.22. IEEE 802.11 WTP Quality of Service > [...] > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Queue Depth | CWMin | CWMax | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | CWMax | AIFS | Dot1P Tag | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Dot1P Tag | DSCP Tag | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > [...] > Dot1P Tag: The 802.1P priority value to use if packets are to be > 802.1P tagged. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Sat Jun 28 11:30:14 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B00D628C158 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2008 11:30:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.294 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.294 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.305, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w2sjHIidET1J for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2008 11:30:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 356EB28C156 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2008 11:30:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C72651C40F41 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2008 11:30:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF103440199 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2008 11:30:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C258E34AC09F for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2008 11:30:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BB7434AC0A2 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2008 11:30:10 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (64.170.98.32 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org [64.170.98.32]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2008 11:30:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id 6D80F3A68C2; Sat, 28 Jun 2008 11:30:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20080628183001.6D80F3A68C2@core3.amsl.com> Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 11:30:01 -0700 (PDT) Cc: capwap@frascone.com Subject: [Capwap] I-D Action:draft-ietf-capwap-802dot11-mib-00.txt X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Control And Provisioning of Wireless Access Points Working Group of the IETF. Title : CAPWAP Protocol Binding MIB for IEEE 802.11 Author(s) : Y. Shi, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-capwap-802dot11-mib-00.txt Pages : 23 Date : 2008-06-28 This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols. In particular, it describes managed objects for modeling the Control And Provisioning of Wireless Access Points (CAPWAP) Protocol for IEEE 802.11 wireless binding. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-capwap-802dot11-mib-00.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-capwap-802dot11-mib-00.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2008-06-28112325.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap --NextPart-- From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Sun Jun 29 03:14:35 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E06063A69B6 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:14:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.961 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.961 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.038, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_31=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q-V1-8Pg4KdR for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:14:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0E023A69A2 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:14:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82BD2430BF1 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:14:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9131C4400DD for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:14:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7579F34AC0A4 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:14:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5477A34AC092 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:14:35 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Sender first seen 12 days 16:10:58 ago / dynamic or unknown reverse DNS) Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:14:34 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,722,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="113007031" Received: from unknown (HELO nj300815-nj-erheast.avaya.com) ([198.152.6.5]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2008 06:14:32 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,722,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="219258811" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by nj300815-nj-erheast-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2008 06:14:31 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 12:14:28 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <2791.64.26.171.81.1214576042.squirrel@webmail.dreamhost.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] AD review ofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E10 Thread-Index: AcjYgEwBELToM3V2SGWkW1nv/n06BABUIolQ References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDDCE4@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> <2791.64.26.171.81.1214576042.squirrel@webmail.dreamhost.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: , "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" Cc: capwap@frascone.com Subject: Re: [Capwap] AD review ofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E10 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com I believe this is correct. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: jeff@joslin.ca [mailto:jeff@joslin.ca] > Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 5:14 PM > To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) > Cc: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: Re: [Capwap] AD review > ofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E10 > > That should be "IEEE 802.1p", the lower-case suffix > indicating that it is not a free-standing standard but rather > it modifies a base standard (802.1D in this case). > > Jeff > > > The AD Review Comment is: > > > > E10. Section 6.14 - IEEE 802.1P tag is three bits - why is the > > 802.1P > > > > Precedence Tag two octets? And why is it called > Precedence Tag and > > not > > Priority Tag (same comment for 6.20, 6.22)? > > > > I want to note first off that while I agree, it does change > the packet > > format, so this is the first change that actually causes a backward > > compatibility issue, but in this case I believe it is necessary. > > > > > > 6.14. IEEE 802.11 Station QoS Profile [...] > > 0 1 2 > 3 > > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 > 6 7 8 9 0 1 > > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > | MAC Address > | > > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > | MAC Address | 802.1P > Priority Tag | > > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > |802.1P Priority Tag > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > [...] > > 802.1P Priority Tag: The maximum 802.1P priority value > that the WTP > > will allow in the TID field in the extended 802.11e QOS Data > > header. > > > > 6.20. IEEE 802.11 Update Station QoS > > [...] > > 0 1 2 3 > > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 > 7 8 9 0 1 2 > > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > | Radio ID | MAC Address > | > > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > | MAC Address | DSCP Tag | > 802.1P Tag | > > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > | 802.1P Tag | > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ [...] > > 802.1P Tag: The 802.1P priority value to use if > packets are to be > > IEEE 802.1P tagged. > > > > 6.22. IEEE 802.11 WTP Quality of Service [...] > > 0 1 2 3 > > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 > 7 8 9 0 1 > > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > | Queue Depth | CWMin | > CWMax | > > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > | CWMax | AIFS | Dot1P Tag > | > > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > | Dot1P Tag | DSCP Tag | > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ [...] > > Dot1P Tag: The 802.1P priority value to use if packets > are to be > > 802.1P tagged. > > > > > > PatC > > _________________________________________________________________ > > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Sun Jun 29 03:15:33 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AA633A6867 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:15:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.262 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.262 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.337, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7cB3seETjXvb for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:15:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 463243A6850 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:15:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09F69430AA0 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:15:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4770F4400DD for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:15:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CB7E34AC0A4 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:15:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AD5B34AC092 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:15:34 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:15:34 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,722,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="133379487" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2008 06:15:33 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,722,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="226081281" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2008 06:15:33 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 12:15:29 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDDCE8@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] AD reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E11 Thread-Index: AcjYW6cdHVFCQdwUR/+9sDJozHllDABdV0NA References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDDCE8@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] AD reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E11 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 4:43 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] AD > reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E11 > > The AD Review Comment is: > > E11. Section 6.23 - Document ISO/IEC 3166- 1 should be > made a Normative > Reference > > OK, I have made the requested change: > > > 6.23. IEEE 802.11 WTP Radio Configuration [...] > Country Code: > [...] The country codes can be found in [ISO.3166.1984]. > > 12.1. Normative References > [...] > [ISO.3166.1984] > International Organization for Standardization, > "Codes for > the Representation of Names of Countries", ISO Standard > 3166, 1984. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Sun Jun 29 03:24:49 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53E273A69E9 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:24:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.971 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.971 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.028, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_31=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8-yZubC1O7Vp for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:24:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7624E3A69B7 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:24:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F736430BF2 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:24:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 121CE4400DD for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:24:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4DE834AC09E for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:24:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7F9134AC09D for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:24:48 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:24:48 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,722,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="133379843" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2008 06:24:32 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,722,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="226081998" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2008 06:24:31 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 12:24:28 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDDCE4@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] AD reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E10 Thread-Index: AcjYWtgtaEqlkrigRIm+/e4lD/SVVABdrsfw References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDDCE4@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] AD reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E10 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com I am afraid that I do not understand the change that is suggested here. My comment was 1. The priority tag is 3 bits (BITS), so what two octets? 2. the name used in the IEEE 802.1 specification is priority and not precedence. Your proposed solution seems now to allocate three octets (BYTES) which is wrong. Also, as per another comment, IEEE 802.1p should be used rather than IEEE 802.1P. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 4:37 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] AD > reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E10 > > The AD Review Comment is: > > E10. Section 6.14 - IEEE 802.1P tag is three bits - why is > the 802.1P > > Precedence Tag two octets? And why is it called Precedence > Tag and not > Priority Tag (same comment for 6.20, 6.22)? > > I want to note first off that while I agree, it does change > the packet format, so this is the first change that actually > causes a backward compatibility issue, but in this case I > believe it is necessary. > > > 6.14. IEEE 802.11 Station QoS Profile > [...] > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 > 7 8 9 0 1 > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | MAC Address > | > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | MAC Address | 802.1P Priority > Tag | > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > |802.1P Priority Tag > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > [...] > 802.1P Priority Tag: The maximum 802.1P priority value > that the WTP > will allow in the TID field in the extended 802.11e QOS Data > header. > > 6.20. IEEE 802.11 Update Station QoS > [...] > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 > 8 9 0 1 2 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Radio ID | MAC Address | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | MAC Address | DSCP Tag | 802.1P Tag | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | 802.1P Tag | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > [...] > 802.1P Tag: The 802.1P priority value to use if packets are to be > IEEE 802.1P tagged. > > 6.22. IEEE 802.11 WTP Quality of Service [...] > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Queue Depth | CWMin | CWMax | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | CWMax | AIFS | Dot1P Tag | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Dot1P Tag | DSCP Tag | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > [...] > Dot1P Tag: The 802.1P priority value to use if packets are to be > 802.1P tagged. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Sun Jun 29 03:28:22 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E97E3A67F9 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:28:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.272 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.272 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.327, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CFU8IFoAVn3K for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:28:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 828433A6850 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:28:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51089430BA4 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:28:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7F964400DD for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:28:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC52434AC0A4 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:28:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 776BF34AC09D for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:28:21 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Sender first seen 12 days 16:24:44 ago / dynamic or unknown reverse DNS) Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:28:21 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,722,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="113007557" Received: from unknown (HELO nj300815-nj-erheast.avaya.com) ([198.152.6.5]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2008 06:28:20 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,722,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="219261481" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by nj300815-nj-erheast-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2008 06:28:19 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 12:28:12 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDDCEA@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] AD reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E12 Thread-Index: AcjYXB8N6fhO5PLzQhqjKMNewOE7TwBdqt3Q References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDDCEA@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] AD reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E12 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 4:46 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] AD > reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E12 > > The AD Review Comment is: > > E12 - Section 6.25 - is radio type a bitmask? Say clearly > so. No need to say > anything about the value for all four radio types > > Yes, I have made a small change to the text as follows: > > > 6.25. IEEE 802.11 WTP Radio Information [...] > Radio Type: The type of radio present. Note this is a bit field > which is used to specify support for more than a single type of > PHY/MAC. The following bit values are supported: > > 1 - 802.11b: An IEEE 802.11b radio. > > 2 - 802.11a: An IEEE 802.11a radio. > > 4 - 802.11g: An IEEE 802.11g radio. > > 8 - 802.11n: An IEEE 802.11n radio. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Sun Jun 29 03:37:56 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E331D3A6961 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:37:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.28 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.28 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.319, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Rv3tU7kvmeXE for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:37:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D2153A68BB for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:37:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 008D0430C1B for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:38:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 527A344013B for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:37:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F3F034AC0A4 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:37:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EDD734AC09D for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:37:58 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:37:57 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,722,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="133380370" Received: from unknown (HELO nj300815-nj-erheast.avaya.com) ([198.152.6.5]) by co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2008 06:37:57 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,722,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="219262634" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by nj300815-nj-erheast-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2008 06:37:56 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 12:37:55 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDDCDE@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] AD reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E9 Thread-Index: AcjYWYIq+xPUADciSOOM8g3yRn4K8gBen6MA References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDDCDE@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] AD reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E9 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Yes, this is exactly what I was looking for and what I think would be useful. Not carrying on text or tables, but providing a pointer for an implementer who is not necessarily a IEEE 802.11 guru. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 4:27 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] AD > reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E9 > > The AD Review Comment is: > > E9. Section 6.13 - more information should be included > about the supported > rates syntax and length (even if the reference to the MIB > document in [2] is > provided > > OK, well I want to try to avoid having to copy part of the > 802.11 spec into the capwap spec, because to really be > comprehensive, this will require us to include tables, etc. > So in the end, the implementor will need to refer to the > standard for completeness. In any case, I can add some more > clarify, and propose the following: > > > 6.13. IEEE 802.11 Station > [...] > Supported Rates: The variable length field containing > the supported > rates to be used with the station, as found in the IEEE 802.11 > dot11OperationalRateSet MIB element (see [IEEE.802-11.2007]). > This field MUST NOT exceed 126 octets and specifies the set of > data rates at which the station may transmit data, where each > octet represents a data rate. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Sun Jun 29 03:38:30 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A46603A69A2 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:38:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.288 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.288 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.311, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6pzHrdEa651R for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:38:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB0693A6961 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:38:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD0EA430C49 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:38:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2FE344013B for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:38:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB94134AC0FC for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:38:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A62C34AC0A4 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:38:32 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com (nj300815-nj-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.12.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:38:31 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,722,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="125377920" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2008 06:38:30 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,722,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="226083949" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2008 06:38:29 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 12:38:28 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDDCDB@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] AD reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E8 Thread-Index: AcjYWIYywmPZ7pUqR7CYhQD28ZzvcwBe7h4g References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDDCDB@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] AD reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E8 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 4:20 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] AD > reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E8 > > The AD Review Comment is: > > E8. Section 6.6 - the 6 Flags bits should rather be named > Reserved Bits. > > I have made the requested change. > > > 6.6. IEEE 802.11 Information Element > [...] > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Radio ID | WLAN ID |B|P| Reserved |Info Element... > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > [...] > Reserved: All implementations complying with this > protocol MUST set > to zero any bits that are reserved in the version of > the protocol > supported by that implementation. Receivers MUST > ignore all bits > not defined for the version of the protocol they support. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Sun Jun 29 03:41:07 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C1B53A6850 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:41:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.296 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.296 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.303, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rULmpMhiGQiQ for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:41:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72EF43A69B7 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:41:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47510430C25 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:41:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E59644013B for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:41:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D65E634AC094 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:41:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01CC334AC019 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:41:07 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:41:06 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,722,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="133380544" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2008 06:41:06 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,722,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="226084410" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2008 06:41:06 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 12:41:04 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDDCD8@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] AD reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E6 Thread-Index: AcjYVxmGkbu7TlU/QcesI8RGSg+LKQBfX9lA References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDDCD8@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] AD reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E6 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 4:10 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] AD > reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E6 > > The AD Review Comment is: > > E6. Section 6.1 - is the field named 'Capabilities' as in > the diagram > > or 'Capability' as in the description? > > The proper name is 'Capability'. I have made the necessary > changes in both the figure and the field description. > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Sun Jun 29 03:41:31 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 206E03A6A0A for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:41:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.303 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.303 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.296, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tIdNqXqogMxK for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:41:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FCBE3A6A03 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:41:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12785430C6B for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:41:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E6DD44013B for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:41:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4077F34AC09D for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:41:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 166AA34AC07C for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:41:32 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com (nj300815-nj-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.12.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:41:31 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,722,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="125378062" Received: from unknown (HELO nj300815-nj-erheast.avaya.com) ([198.152.6.5]) by nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2008 06:41:31 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,722,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="219263054" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by nj300815-nj-erheast-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2008 06:41:31 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 12:41:30 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDDCD7@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] AD reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E5 Thread-Index: AcjYVteILjzPZGMZRZ+AblBZkdED2QBfdPPw References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDDCD7@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] AD reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E5 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 4:08 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] AD > reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E5 > > The AD Review Comment is: > > E5. Section 6 - for consistency it looks like the IEEE 802.11 > Message Element / Type Value table should be a numbered figure. > > I have made the requested change: > > > 6. IEEE 802.11 Message Element Definitions > > The following IEEE 802.11 specific message elements are defined in > this section. > > > IEEE 802.11 Message Element Type Value > > IEEE 802.11 Add WLAN 1024 > IEEE 802.11 Antenna 1025 > IEEE 802.11 Assigned WTP BSSID 1026 > IEEE 802.11 Delete WLAN 1027 > IEEE 802.11 Direct Sequence Control 1028 > IEEE 802.11 Information Element 1029 > IEEE 802.11 MAC Operation 1030 > IEEE 802.11 MIC Countermeasures 1031 > IEEE 802.11 Multi-Domain Capability 1032 > IEEE 802.11 OFDM Control 1033 > IEEE 802.11 Rate Set 1034 > IEEE 802.11 RSNA Error Report From Station 1035 > IEEE 802.11 Station 1036 > IEEE 802.11 Station QoS Profile 1037 > IEEE 802.11 Station Session Key 1038 > IEEE 802.11 Statistics 1039 > IEEE 802.11 Supported Rates 1040 > IEEE 802.11 Tx Power 1041 > IEEE 802.11 Tx Power Level 1042 > IEEE 802.11 Update Station QoS 1043 > IEEE 802.11 Update WLAN 1044 > IEEE 802.11 WTP Quality of Service 1045 > IEEE 802.11 WTP Radio Configuration 1046 > IEEE 802.11 WTP Radio Fail Alarm Indication 1047 > IEEE 802.11 WTP Radio Information 1048 > > Figure 8: IEEE 802.11 Binding Message Elements > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Sun Jun 29 03:42:32 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B246A3A6A0A for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:42:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.31 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.31 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.289, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q4KGLVu6K57F for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:42:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCAF93A6A03 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:42:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2770430BBE for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:42:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BAE244013B for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:42:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00F3D34AC07C for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:42:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22AB834AC09D for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:42:26 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:42:25 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,722,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="133380603" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2008 06:42:25 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,722,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="226084509" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2008 06:42:25 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 12:42:24 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDDCD2@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] AD reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E2 Thread-Index: AcjYVfn0yznMeMVPQr61fpL+MELfigBfseag References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDDCD2@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] AD reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E2 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com I can live with this as it is now. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 4:02 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] AD > reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E2 > > The AD Review Comment is: > > E2. Terminology - The definition of a Station (STA) > differs from the one in > [3]. Is it there that it should extended to describe the > presence of a MAC and > a PHY, or is it here it is unnecessarily verbose? > > Well... Here we are being specific that in terms of the a STA in the > 802.11 binding spec, the station must have a MAC and PHY that > conforms to that standard. We can remove it if you believe it > is unnecessary, but the base spec is pretty loose in its > definition since we are being "wireless standard" agnostic. > The two documents have different purposes. > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Sun Jun 29 03:43:57 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F12183A6A0F for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:43:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.316 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.316 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.283, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u5lEw5LYjJ0E for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:43:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26BA63A6A0A for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:43:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFADF430C73 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:44:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 627F444013D for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:43:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4809B34AC094 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:43:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9978034AC0FC for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:43:57 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Sender first seen 12 days 16:40:20 ago / dynamic or unknown reverse DNS) Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:43:57 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,722,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="113008007" Received: from unknown (HELO nj300815-nj-erheast.avaya.com) ([198.152.6.5]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2008 06:43:56 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,722,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="219263254" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by nj300815-nj-erheast-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2008 06:43:55 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 12:43:51 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDDCD1@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] AD reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 T7 Thread-Index: AcjYVQoi14yosJOWQ5eYjvnTVZ6/IQBf+HZA References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDDCD1@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] AD reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 T7 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 3:55 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] AD > reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 T7 > > The AD Review Comment is: > > T7. Section 6.10 - the definition of how the field Band > supported is codified > is confusing. First a three bit integer value is > mentioned, but then the > explanation seems to indicate it's a bit mask > > Yes, the text was indeed confusing, and unfortunately, this > is one area where the 2007 spec changed that we did not > catch. So someone only implementing to the CAPWAP spec, and > ignoring the IEEE spec would not have supported all of the > bands (although I would question someone implementing 802.11 > without at least referring to the standard itself, and > already had a reference to help the implementor). > > In any case, the new text is: > > > 6.10. IEEE 802.11 OFDM Control > [...] > Band Supported: The capability of the OFDM PHY implementation to > operate in the three U-NII bands. The value of this field comes > from the IEEE 802.11 dot11FrequencyBandsSupported MIB > element (see > [IEEE.802-11.2007]), coded as a bit field, whose values are: > > Bit 0 - capable of operating in the 5.15-5.25 GHz band > > Bit 1 - capable of operating in the 5.25-5.35 GHz band > > Bit 2 - capable of operating in the 5.725-5.825 GHz band > > Bit 3 - capable of operating in the 5.47-5.725 GHz band > > Bit 4 - capable of operating in the lower Japanese > 5.25 GHz band > > Bit 5 - capable of operating in the 5.03-5.091 GHz band > > Bit 6 - capable of operating in the 4.94-4.99 GHz band > > For example, for an implementation capable of operating in the > 5.15-5.35 GHz bands this attribute would take the value 3. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Sun Jun 29 03:45:22 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD5B93A6A03 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:45:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.323 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.323 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.276, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m1bNUXUVBmdg for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:45:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8ABE3A6A0F for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:45:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5F4A430CC5 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:45:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E013E44013C for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:45:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B492F34AC10B for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:45:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C15B234AC019 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:45:16 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:45:16 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,722,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="133380740" Received: from unknown (HELO nj300815-nj-erheast.avaya.com) ([198.152.6.5]) by co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2008 06:45:16 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,722,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="219263290" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by nj300815-nj-erheast-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2008 06:45:15 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 12:45:12 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDDCDA@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] AD reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E7 Thread-Index: AcjYWCeyUy19egcRQ/2R1X4GOmE/dABfQbKQ References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDDCDA@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] AD reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E7 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 4:18 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] AD > reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E7 > > The AD Review Comment is: > > E7. Section 6.2 - Antenna Selection should be represented > in the diagram as N > x 8 bit fields. Maybe the diagram is meant to say that > padding is applied to > 32-bit multiple in this case, but this should be clearly > described, if this is > the case. > > Yes, this was an error. The text has been modified to: > > > 6.2. IEEE 802.11 Antenna > [...] > > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 > 7 8 9 0 1 > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Radio ID | Diversity | Combiner | > Antenna Cnt | > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Antenna Selection... > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > [...] > Antenna Selection: One 8-bit antenna configuration value per > antenna in the WTP, containing up to 255 antennas. The > following > values are supported: > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Sun Jun 29 03:46:02 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5073B3A6A20 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:46:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.329 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.329 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.270, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id juL+tMiC8goa for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:46:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D4DC3A6A0A for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:45:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DD51430CC6 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:46:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D39544013B for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:46:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1890134AC094 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:46:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49C0A34AC102 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:46:01 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Sender first seen 12 days 16:42:24 ago / dynamic or unknown reverse DNS) Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:46:01 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,722,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="113008094" Received: from unknown (HELO nj300815-nj-erheast.avaya.com) ([198.152.6.5]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2008 06:46:00 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,722,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="219263367" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by nj300815-nj-erheast-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2008 06:45:59 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 12:45:58 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDDCD5@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] AD reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E4 Thread-Index: AcjYVloNyxl07RCOQemw5MPo+7AHnABfvAuQ References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDDCD5@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] AD reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E4 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Thanks. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 4:05 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] AD > reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E4 > > The AD Review Comment is: > > E4. Section 4, page 19, Data rate - s/The data rate field > is a 16 bit unsigned > value. The contents of the field is set to 10 times the > data rate in Mbps of > the packet received by the WTP. /The data rate field is a > 16 bit unsigned > value expressing the data rate of the packets received by > the WTP in units of > 0.1 Mbps./ > > I have made the recommended change. > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Sun Jun 29 03:49:17 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D8623A6A20 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:49:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.335 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.335 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.264, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dievFg7cbGop for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:49:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 851A33A6A03 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:49:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6045F430C25 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:49:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8A6C44013B for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:49:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF61534AC094 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:49:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7B0834AC019 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:49:02 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:49:02 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,722,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="133380909" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2008 06:49:02 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,722,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="226084805" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2008 06:49:02 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 12:49:01 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDDCD0@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] AD reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 T4 Thread-Index: AcjYU9EiViUkk3BvQHW0txtbRYynAwBgeWjg References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDDCD0@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] AD reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 T4 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 3:46 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] AD > reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 T4 > > The AD Review Comment is: > > T4. Section 6.1 - what is the format and length of the SSID field? > > Unfortunately, the standard is loose on the definition, other > than the max length of the field, so I'm not sure that we can > add any additional restrictions. The following text is the > best we can do at this point: > > > 6.1. IEEE 802.11 Add WLAN > [...] > SSID: The SSID attribute is the service set identifier > that will be > advertised by the WTP for this WLAN. The SSID field > contains any > ASCII character and MUST NOT exceed 32 octets in length, as > defined in [IEEE.802-11.2007]. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Sun Jun 29 03:50:11 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 336FA3A6A21 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:50:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.34 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.34 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.259, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x1FPphrGBVgn for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:50:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A7103A6A03 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:50:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 452EB430D10 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:50:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8C3D44013B for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:50:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC50534AC0FC for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:50:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C395034AC019 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:50:11 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Sender first seen 12 days 16:46:34 ago / dynamic or unknown reverse DNS) Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:50:11 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,722,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="113008227" Received: from unknown (HELO nj300815-nj-erheast.avaya.com) ([198.152.6.5]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2008 06:50:10 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,722,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="219263746" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by nj300815-nj-erheast-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2008 06:50:09 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 12:50:09 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDDCCF@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] AD reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 T5 Thread-Index: AcjYUsM8QE7HiOVXScmNWATkZFXptwBgxTyA References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDDCCF@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] AD reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 T5 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Yep, thanks, OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 3:39 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] AD > reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 T5 > > The AD Review Comment is: > > T5. Section 6.3 - why length = 3? > > Actually, I believe you meant 6.4, and yes, it should have > been 2, not 3. > > > 6.4. IEEE 802.11 Delete WLAN > [...] > Type: 1027 for IEEE 802.11 Delete WLAN > > Length: 3 > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Sun Jun 29 03:51:07 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E93023A6A03 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:51:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.345 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.345 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.254, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rXNtUAytHy0E for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:51:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 335023A6961 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:51:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0ADCE430CDB for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:51:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD68544013B for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:51:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8983C34AC105 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:51:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8142334AC019 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:51:08 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Sender first seen 12 days 16:47:31 ago / dynamic or unknown reverse DNS) Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:51:08 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,722,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="113008252" Received: from unknown (HELO nj300815-nj-erheast.avaya.com) ([198.152.6.5]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2008 06:51:07 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,722,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="219263782" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by nj300815-nj-erheast-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2008 06:51:06 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 12:51:01 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDDCCE@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] AD reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 T6 Thread-Index: AcjYUlzVEcbkw332R/2c0WJn38w4bgBg5ZZw References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDDCCE@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] AD reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 T6 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK, Thanks. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 3:36 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] AD > reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 T6 > > The AD Review Comment is: > > T6. Section 6.6 - should not length be >=3? (RadioID + > WLANID + Flags at > minimum) > > Actually, it should be >=4, since a message element needs to > be present. > > > > 6.6. IEEE 802.11 Information Element > [...] > Type: 1029 for IEEE 802.11 Information Element > > Length: >= 4 > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Sun Jun 29 03:51:28 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C059B3A6A35 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:51:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.35 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.35 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.249, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0jkFHLwalF1a for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:51:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44B3E3A6961 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:51:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E33B430CDB for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:51:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9726444013B for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:51:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7924834AC094 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:51:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96D5634AC019 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:51:28 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:51:28 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,722,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="133381040" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2008 06:51:28 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,722,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="226084988" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2008 06:51:27 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 12:51:27 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDDCCC@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] AD reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 T8 Thread-Index: AcjYUVk6sdrT3gzNQP2PWCXSdnD//gBhLYgA References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDDCCC@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] AD reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 T8 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Thanks. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 3:29 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] AD > reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 T8 > > The AD Review Comment is: > > T8. Section 6.12 - the length should be 40 > > Yes, that is correct. I have made the change. > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Sun Jun 29 03:53:43 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A82B3A6A03 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:53:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.355 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.355 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.244, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6zEmdVrA5lSw for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:53:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 587A53A6961 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:53:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A054430D3A for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:53:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2668844013B for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:53:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0886734AC094 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:53:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58BFE34AC019 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:53:42 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com (nj300815-nj-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.12.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:53:42 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,722,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="125378486" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2008 06:53:41 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,722,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="226085056" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2008 06:53:40 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 12:53:39 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDDCC9@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] AD reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 T10 Thread-Index: AcjYULG+FMCE3zM6SzOSd7po5Es7hABhaCPw References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDDCC9@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] AD reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 T10 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Thanks, I think that the proposed text clarifies the issue. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 3:24 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] AD > reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 T10 > > The AD Review comment is: > > T10. Section 6.23 - Country Code > > Special > attention is required with use of this field, as implementations > which take action based on this field could violate regulatory > requirements. Some regulatory bodies do permit configuration of > the country code under certain restrictions, such as > the FCC, when > WTPs are certified as Software Defined Radios. > > I do not know what can be done with this text from a > technical (implementation > or processing) point of view. What 'special attention' > means? What can an implementation know about regulatory > restrictions? > And what 'certain restrictions' mean? I suggest to > reconsider if this text is > needed and if it is clarify if there are any technical > impacts or move it to a > separate note or subsection. > > Well, I'm not quite sure how to handle your comment. The > issue here is that some regulatory bodies, where WTP vendors > will need to go to in order to certify their radios, do not > allow the "country code" to be configurable. In these > regulatory domains, the country code, and therefore the > channels, transmit power and other parameters must be fixed > and not modified by the end user. I also struggle with your > comment on moving this to another section in the document as > I believe it would end up getting lost. What if I were to > modify the text to read > instead: > > > Some regulatory domains do > not allow WTPs to have user configurable country codes, and require > that it be a fixed value during the manufacturing process. > Therefore, > WTP vendors that wish to allow for the configuration of > this field will > need to validate this behavior during its radio > certification process. > Other WTP vendors may simply wish to treat this WTP configuration > parameter as read-only. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Sun Jun 29 03:54:25 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 687103A6A03 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:54:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.36 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.36 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.239, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 51jeEKZfKA7t for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:54:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CB323A6A30 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:54:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27D08430CD9 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:54:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1984D44013B for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:54:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6E1E34AC094 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:54:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5233934AC019 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:54:24 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 03:54:24 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,722,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="133381220" Received: from unknown (HELO nj300815-nj-erheast.avaya.com) ([198.152.6.5]) by co300216-co-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2008 06:54:23 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,722,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="219264035" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by nj300815-nj-erheast-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2008 06:54:23 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 12:54:21 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDDCC8@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] AD reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 T1 Thread-Index: AcjYT3AgQ2/4GRDXS6OXyGY9Kd4vjwBhwa4Q References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDDCC8@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] AD reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 T1 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 3:15 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] AD > reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 T1 > > The AD review comment is: > > T1. Section 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 - What version of IEEE 802.1X > is this document supporting? I believe > that this needs to be clarified, as IEEE 802.1X is > currently under revision, and the document > needs to be included as a Normative reference. > > That is correct, so I am adding the proper references. I also > just now noticed that we were referring to version 1999 of > the 802.11 spec, which is incorrect. We had agreed that we > would use the 2007 version of the spec. I am therefore also > making that change. > > > 2.1.1. Split MAC > [...] > All remaining IEEE 802.11 MAC management frames are > supported on the > AC, including the Association Request frame which allows > the AC to be > involved in the access policy enforcement portion of the > IEEE 802.11 > protocol. The IEEE 802.1X [IEEE.802-1X.2004] and IEEE RSNA Key > Management [IEEE.802-11I.2004] functions are also located > on the AC. > This implies that the AAA client also resides on the AC. > [...] > Upon receiving data > frames from the AC, the WTP is responsible for adding the > FCS field, > and populating the field as described in [IEEE.802-11.2007]. > > 2.1.2. Local MAC > [...] > The IEEE 802.1X [IEEE.802-1X.2004] and IEEE RSNA Key Management > [IEEE.802-11I.2004] functions reside in the AC. Therefore, the WTP > MUST forward all IEEE 802.1X/RSNA Key Management frames to > the AC and > forward the corresponding responses to the station. This implies > that the AAA client also resides on the AC. > > 12.1. Normative References > [...] > [IEEE.802-11.2007] > "Information technology - Telecommunications and > information exchange between systems - Local and > metropolitan area networks - Specific > requirements - Part > 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) > and Physical > Layer (PHY) specifications", IEEE Standard > 802.11, 2007, < > http://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/download/ > 802.11-2007.pdf>. > > [IEEE.802-1X.2004] > "Information technology - Telecommunications and > information exchange between systems - Local and > metropolitan area networks - Specific > requirements - Port- > Based Network Access Control", IEEE Standard > 802.1X, 2004, > 802.1X-2004.pdf>. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Sun Jun 29 08:50:01 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E75F73A68C9 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 08:50:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.573 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.573 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.026, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7EvRpMjrQ6pq for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 08:50:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C67B43A6863 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 08:50:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D9AE439FB4 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 08:50:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2789B440147 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 08:50:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09DC834AC0A4 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 08:50:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 783B234AC105 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 08:50:02 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.72 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 08:50:02 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,722,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="83965584" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2008 08:49:57 -0700 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5TFnv5D005436 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 08:49:57 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5TFnvWX009940 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:49:57 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sun, 29 Jun 2008 08:49:57 -0700 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 08:49:56 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDE1A8@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: AD review ofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 T9 Thread-Index: AcjZ/8as9G8X8Bk1RLW+sD0TmmXaOw== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Jun 2008 15:49:57.0748 (UTC) FILETIME=[C81FE340:01C8D9FF] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] AD review ofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 T9 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com The AD Review Comment is: T9. Section 6.16 - for all statistics counters in this message - explain 1. do they start counting from 0 at initialization? What is the behavior when the device loses power? What is the behavior when they reach maximal value? Minimal interval between two rollover events I'm not sure that I'm addressing your last point, especially since it is rather difficult to gauge the interval, because while a couple of fields representing received/transmitted packets, others represent events that will occur vary infrequently. So I am proposing the following, but if this is not sufficient, let me know what you would like me to provide. I can do quick math for the tx/rx fields, assuming full throttle, but others would be nothing more than a "wild guess". 6.16. IEEE 802.11 Statistics The IEEE 802.11 Statistics message element is sent by the WTP to transmit its current statistics, and contains the following fields. All of the fields in this message element are set to zero upon WTP initialization. The fields will roll over when they reach their maximum value of 65535. Due to the nature of each counter representing different data points, the roll over event will vary greatly across each field. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Sun Jun 29 09:21:34 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 584EA3A681A for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:21:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.369 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.369 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.230, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nDRB8ARsNbKt for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:21:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CCA13A684B for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:21:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09B28432A3F for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:21:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E41F44012E for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:21:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77B9534AC09D for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:21:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9558634AC076 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:21:34 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com (nj300815-nj-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.12.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:21:33 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,722,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="125396359" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2008 12:21:32 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,722,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="226133290" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2008 12:21:31 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 18:21:18 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDE1A8@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] AD reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 T9 Thread-Index: AcjZ/8as9G8X8Bk1RLW+sD0TmmXaOwAA7OIg References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDE1A8@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] AD reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 T9 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com All this is good. About the rollover time, the reason it is desirable to be included in specifications is for the receiving application, firmware or human to know what is the largest interval they need to look into the value of the object in order to make sure that no two rollover events are being missed. Can we add something like 'Applications or human operators using these counters need to be aware about the minimal possible times between rollover events in order to make sure that no consecutive rollover events are missed.'? Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 6:50 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] AD > reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 T9 > > The AD Review Comment is: > > T9. Section 6.16 - for all statistics counters in this > message - explain 1. do > they start counting from 0 at initialization? What is the > behavior when the > device loses power? What is the behavior when they reach > maximal value? > Minimal interval between two rollover events > > I'm not sure that I'm addressing your last point, especially > since it is rather difficult to gauge the interval, because > while a couple of fields representing received/transmitted > packets, others represent events that will occur vary > infrequently. So I am proposing the following, but if this is > not sufficient, let me know what you would like me to > provide. I can do quick math for the tx/rx fields, assuming > full throttle, but others would be nothing more than a "wild guess". > > > 6.16. IEEE 802.11 Statistics > > The IEEE 802.11 Statistics message element is sent by the WTP to > transmit its current statistics, and contains the following fields. > All of the fields in this message element are set to zero upon WTP > initialization. The fields will roll over when they reach their > maximum value of 65535. Due to the nature of each counter > representing different data points, the roll over event will vary > greatly across each field. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Sun Jun 29 09:22:39 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F6743A684B for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:22:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.574 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.574 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.025, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6LCE702ewWVK for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:22:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6402D3A681A for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:22:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE54B4329BF for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:22:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72D0E440120 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:22:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FFFA34AC108 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:22:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B252034AC09D for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:22:39 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.117 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:22:39 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,722,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="120033234" Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2008 09:22:39 -0700 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5TGMd7T003137 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:22:39 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5TGMdMU016117 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:22:39 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:22:39 -0700 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:22:37 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDE1A9@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: AD review ofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 T3 Thread-Index: AcjaBFhWf89Vx0BBTkqNEu/1GOTajg== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Jun 2008 16:22:39.0150 (UTC) FILETIME=[593614E0:01C8DA04] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] AD review ofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 T3 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com The AD Review Comment is: T3. What is the encoding of the Capabilities or Capability field (see also E6)? Honestly, in order to address this I will end up having to replicate a good portion of the 802.11 spec, which I don't think we want to do. I am proposing a lightweight version below. 6.1. IEEE 802.11 Add WLAN [...] Capability: A 16-bit value containing the capability information field to be advertised by the WTP in the Probe Request and Beacon frames. Each bit of the Capability field represents a different WTP capability, which are described in detail in [IEEE.802-11.2007]. The format of the field is: 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |E|I|C|F|P|S|B|A|M|Q|T|D|V|O|K|L| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ E (ESS): The AC MUST set the ESS subfield to 1. I (IBSS): The AC MUST set the IBSS subfield to 0. C (CF-Pollable): The AC sets the CF-Pollable subfield based on the table found in [IEEE.802-11.2007]. F (CF-Poll Request): The AC sets the CF-Poll Request subfield based on the table found in [IEEE.802-11.2007]. P (Privacy): The AC sets the Privacy subfield based on the confidentiality requirements of the WLAN, as defined in [IEEE.802-11.2007]. S (Short Preamble): The AC sets the Short Preamble subfield based on whether the use of short preambles are permitted on the WLAN, as defined in [IEEE.802-11.2007]. B (PBCC): The AC sets the Packet Binary Convolutional Code (PBCC) modulation option subfield based on whether the use of PBCC is permitted on the WLAN, as defined in [IEEE.802-11.2007]. A (Channel Agility): The AC sets the Channel Agility subfield based on whether the WTP is capable of supporting the High Rate Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum (HR/DSSS), as defined in [IEEE.802-11.2007]. M (Spectrum Management): The AC sets the Spectrum Management subfield according to the value of the dot11SpectrumManagementRequired MIB variable, as defined in [IEEE.802-11.2007]. Q (QOS): The AC sets the QOS subfield based on the table found in [IEEE.802-11.2007]. T (Short Slot Time): The AC sets the Short Slot Timesubfield according to the value of the WTP's currently used slot time value, as defined in [IEEE.802-11.2007]. D (APSD): The AC sets the APSD subfield according to the value of the dot11APSDOptionImplemented MIB variable, as defined in [IEEE.802-11.2007]. V (Reserved): The AC sets the Reserved subfield to zero, as defined in [IEEE.802-11.2007]. O (DSSS-OFDM): The AC sets the DSSS-OFDM subfield to indicate the use of Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum with Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (DSSS-OFDM), as defined in [IEEE.802-11.2007]. K (Delayed Block ACK): The AC sets the Delayed Block ACK subfield according to the value of the dot11DelayedBlockAckOptionImplemented MIB variable, as defined in [IEEE.802-11.2007]. L (Immediate Block ACK): The AC sets the Delayed Block ACK subfield according to the value of the dot11ImmediateBlockAckOptionImplemented MIB variable, as defined in [IEEE.802-11.2007]. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Sun Jun 29 09:25:30 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 624B73A6850 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:25:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.373 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.373 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.226, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Am9lKP4IdJOG for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:25:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 679543A681A for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:25:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED5D5432A67 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:25:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDCAD440120 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:25:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B239434AC079 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:25:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A756F34AC09D for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:25:30 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Sender first seen 12 days 22:21:53 ago / dynamic or unknown reverse DNS) Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:25:29 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,722,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="113023420" Received: from unknown (HELO nj300815-nj-erheast.avaya.com) ([198.152.6.5]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2008 12:25:28 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,722,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="219314653" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by nj300815-nj-erheast-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2008 12:25:27 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 18:25:24 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDE1A9@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] AD reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 T3 Thread-Index: AcjaBFhWf89Vx0BBTkqNEu/1GOTajgAAFhkg References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDE1A9@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] AD reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 T3 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 7:23 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] AD > reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 T3 > > The AD Review Comment is: > > T3. What is the encoding of the Capabilities or Capability > field (see also E6)? > > Honestly, in order to address this I will end up having to > replicate a good portion of the 802.11 spec, which I don't > think we want to do. I am proposing a lightweight version below. > > > 6.1. IEEE 802.11 Add WLAN > [...] > Capability: A 16-bit value containing the capability information > field to be advertised by the WTP in the Probe Request > and Beacon > frames. Each bit of the Capability field represents a different > WTP capability, which are described in detail in > [IEEE.802-11.2007]. The format of the field is: > > 0 1 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > |E|I|C|F|P|S|B|A|M|Q|T|D|V|O|K|L| > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > E (ESS): The AC MUST set the ESS subfield to 1. > > I (IBSS): The AC MUST set the IBSS subfield to 0. > > C (CF-Pollable): The AC sets the CF-Pollable subfield based on > the table found in [IEEE.802-11.2007]. > > F (CF-Poll Request): The AC sets the CF-Poll Request subfield > based on the table found in [IEEE.802-11.2007]. > > P (Privacy): The AC sets the Privacy subfield based on the > confidentiality requirements of the WLAN, as defined in > [IEEE.802-11.2007]. > > S (Short Preamble): The AC sets the Short Preamble subfield > based on whether the use of short preambles are permitted on > the WLAN, as defined in [IEEE.802-11.2007]. > > B (PBCC): The AC sets the Packet Binary Convolutional Code > (PBCC) modulation option subfield based on whether the use of > PBCC is permitted on the WLAN, as defined in > [IEEE.802-11.2007]. > > A (Channel Agility): The AC sets the Channel Agility subfield > based on whether the WTP is capable of supporting > the High Rate > Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum (HR/DSSS), as defined in > [IEEE.802-11.2007]. > > M (Spectrum Management): The AC sets the Spectrum Management > subfield according to the value of the > dot11SpectrumManagementRequired MIB variable, as defined in > [IEEE.802-11.2007]. > > Q (QOS): The AC sets the QOS subfield based on the table found > in [IEEE.802-11.2007]. > > T (Short Slot Time): The AC sets the Short Slot Timesubfield > according to the value of the WTP's currently used slot time > value, as defined in [IEEE.802-11.2007]. > > D (APSD): The AC sets the APSD subfield according to the value > of the dot11APSDOptionImplemented MIB variable, as defined in > [IEEE.802-11.2007]. > > V (Reserved): The AC sets the Reserved subfield to zero, as > defined in [IEEE.802-11.2007]. > > O (DSSS-OFDM): The AC sets the DSSS-OFDM subfield to indicate > the use of Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum with Orthogonal > Frequency Division Multiplexing (DSSS-OFDM), as defined in > [IEEE.802-11.2007]. > > K (Delayed Block ACK): The AC sets the Delayed Block ACK > subfield according to the value of the > dot11DelayedBlockAckOptionImplemented MIB variable, > as defined > in [IEEE.802-11.2007]. > > L (Immediate Block ACK): The AC sets the Delayed Block ACK > subfield according to the value of the > dot11ImmediateBlockAckOptionImplemented MIB variable, as > defined in [IEEE.802-11.2007]. > > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Sun Jun 29 09:26:08 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6AFF3A6850 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:26:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.575 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.575 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.024, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vAR3Q6lQ-vVG for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:26:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED3D83A6863 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:26:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B37E4329EB for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:26:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DA0344012E for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:26:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5A7D34AC0A4 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:26:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BBC334AC108 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:26:07 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.117 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:26:07 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,722,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="120034136" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2008 09:26:06 -0700 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5TGQ6f3022479; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:26:06 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5TGQ646023723; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:26:06 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:26:06 -0700 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:26:05 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDE1AA@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] ADreviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E1 Thread-Index: AcjXihGIKyWOv4UoQZCsmy//LhTCrwAIpf2QAJYI18A= References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDD782@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Jun 2008 16:26:06.0205 (UTC) FILETIME=[D4A02AD0:01C8DA04] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Capwap] ADreviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E1 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com What does "a reference quote free text" mean? PatC -----Original Message----- From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 9:53 AM To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap@frascone.com Subject: Re: [Capwap] ADreviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E1 OK with me - sorry to have missed this in the base protocol document, yes, would be good to fix there as well to a reference quote free text. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 3:42 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] AD > reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E1 > > The AD review comment was: > > E1. It is recommended to avoid mentioning references in Abstract > sections. The > current Abstract section mentions [3], I suggest to remove this. > > I can certainly make this change, but I would like to note that the > base protocol also includes references in the abstract. I will > therefore need to make a similar change in that spec. I will create a > separate issue for that spec. > > To fix this issue, I have moved the offending sentence to the > introduction section: > > > Abstract > > Wireless LAN product architectures have evolved from single > autonomous access points to systems consisting of a centralized > Access Controller (AC) and Wireless Termination Points (WTPs). The > general goal of centralized control architectures is to move access > control, including user authentication and authorization, mobility > management and radio management from the single access point to a > centralized controller. > > This specification defines the Control And Provisioning of Wireless > Access Points (CAPWAP) Protocol Binding Specification for use with > the IEEE 802.11 Wireless Local Area Network protocol. > > 1. Introduction > > This specification defines the Control And Provisioning of Wireless > Access Points (CAPWAP) Protocol Binding Specification for use with > the IEEE 802.11 Wireless Local Area Network protocol. The CAPWAP > Protocol Specification is defined separately > [I-D.ietf-capwap-protocol-specification]. Use of CAPWAP control > message fields, new control messages and message elements are > defined. The minimum required definitions for a binding-specific > Statistics message element, Station message element, and WTP Radio > Information message element are included. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Sun Jun 29 09:27:47 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 130E53A6850 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:27:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.275 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.275 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.276, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_31=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tvKh5gQINHau for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:27:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 378003A681A for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:27:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C49F24329BF for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:27:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EA6C440120 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:27:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E80734AC10A for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:27:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C3FA34AC079 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:27:47 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.71 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:27:47 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,722,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="61251847" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2008 09:27:47 -0700 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5TGRlJk019574; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:27:47 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5TGRlns024225; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:27:47 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:27:47 -0700 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:27:46 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDE1AB@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] AD reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E10 Thread-Index: AcjYgEwBELToM3V2SGWkW1nv/n06BABUIolQAA0LzhA= References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDDCE4@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com><2791.64.26.171.81.1214576042.squirrel@webmail.dreamhost.com> From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Jun 2008 16:27:47.0263 (UTC) FILETIME=[10DC64F0:01C8DA05] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Cc: capwap@frascone.com Subject: Re: [Capwap] AD reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E10 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com I am closing the issue, with the change to lowercase p. PatC -----Original Message----- From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 3:14 AM To: jeff@joslin.ca; Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) Cc: capwap@frascone.com Subject: Re: [Capwap] AD reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E10 I believe this is correct. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: jeff@joslin.ca [mailto:jeff@joslin.ca] > Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 5:14 PM > To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) > Cc: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: Re: [Capwap] AD review > ofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E10 > > That should be "IEEE 802.1p", the lower-case suffix indicating that it > is not a free-standing standard but rather it modifies a base standard > (802.1D in this case). > > Jeff > > > The AD Review Comment is: > > > > E10. Section 6.14 - IEEE 802.1P tag is three bits - why is the > > 802.1P > > > > Precedence Tag two octets? And why is it called > Precedence Tag and > > not > > Priority Tag (same comment for 6.20, 6.22)? > > > > I want to note first off that while I agree, it does change > the packet > > format, so this is the first change that actually causes a backward > > compatibility issue, but in this case I believe it is necessary. > > > > > > 6.14. IEEE 802.11 Station QoS Profile [...] > > 0 1 2 > 3 > > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 > 6 7 8 9 0 1 > > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > | MAC Address > | > > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > | MAC Address | 802.1P > Priority Tag | > > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > |802.1P Priority Tag > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > [...] > > 802.1P Priority Tag: The maximum 802.1P priority value > that the WTP > > will allow in the TID field in the extended 802.11e QOS Data > > header. > > > > 6.20. IEEE 802.11 Update Station QoS [...] > > 0 1 2 3 > > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 > 7 8 9 0 1 2 > > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > | Radio ID | MAC Address > | > > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > | MAC Address | DSCP Tag | > 802.1P Tag | > > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > | 802.1P Tag | > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ [...] > > 802.1P Tag: The 802.1P priority value to use if > packets are to be > > IEEE 802.1P tagged. > > > > 6.22. IEEE 802.11 WTP Quality of Service [...] > > 0 1 2 3 > > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 > 7 8 9 0 1 > > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > | Queue Depth | CWMin | > CWMax | > > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > | CWMax | AIFS | Dot1P Tag > | > > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > | Dot1P Tag | DSCP Tag | > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ [...] > > Dot1P Tag: The 802.1P priority value to use if packets > are to be > > 802.1P tagged. > > > > > > PatC > > _________________________________________________________________ > > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Sun Jun 29 09:28:29 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D7073A6850 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:28:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.377 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.377 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.222, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YlhEq3vMGr+R for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:28:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C57A3A681A for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:28:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9548432A20 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:28:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB2E7440120 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:28:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D41C34AC10A for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:28:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 658E634AC079 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:28:29 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com (nj300815-nj-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.12.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:28:29 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,722,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="125396661" Received: from unknown (HELO nj300815-nj-erheast.avaya.com) ([198.152.6.5]) by nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2008 12:28:28 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,722,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="219315320" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by nj300815-nj-erheast-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2008 12:28:28 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 18:28:21 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDE1AA@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] ADreviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E1 Thread-Index: AcjXihGIKyWOv4UoQZCsmy//LhTCrwAIpf2QAJYI18AAAA7qsA== References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDD782@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDE1AA@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] ADreviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E1 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com with no bracket references :-) > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 7:26 PM > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); capwap@frascone.com > Subject: RE: [Capwap] > ADreviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E1 > > What does "a reference quote free text" mean? > > PatC > > -----Original Message----- > From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 9:53 AM > To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap@frascone.com > Subject: Re: [Capwap] > ADreviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E1 > > OK with me - sorry to have missed this in the base protocol > document, yes, would be good to fix there as well to a > reference quote free text. > > Dan > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > > Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 3:42 PM > > To: capwap@frascone.com > > Subject: [Capwap] AD > > reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E1 > > > > The AD review comment was: > > > > E1. It is recommended to avoid mentioning references in Abstract > > sections. The > > current Abstract section mentions [3], I suggest to remove this. > > > > I can certainly make this change, but I would like to note that the > > base protocol also includes references in the abstract. I will > > therefore need to make a similar change in that spec. I > will create a > > separate issue for that spec. > > > > To fix this issue, I have moved the offending sentence to the > > introduction section: > > > > > > Abstract > > > > Wireless LAN product architectures have evolved from single > > autonomous access points to systems consisting of a centralized > > Access Controller (AC) and Wireless Termination Points > (WTPs). The > > general goal of centralized control architectures is to > move access > > control, including user authentication and > authorization, mobility > > management and radio management from the single access point to a > > centralized controller. > > > > This specification defines the Control And Provisioning > of Wireless > > Access Points (CAPWAP) Protocol Binding Specification > for use with > > the IEEE 802.11 Wireless Local Area Network protocol. > > > > 1. Introduction > > > > This specification defines the Control And Provisioning > of Wireless > > Access Points (CAPWAP) Protocol Binding Specification > for use with > > the IEEE 802.11 Wireless Local Area Network protocol. The CAPWAP > > Protocol Specification is defined separately > > [I-D.ietf-capwap-protocol-specification]. Use of CAPWAP control > > message fields, new control messages and message elements are > > defined. The minimum required definitions for a binding-specific > > Statistics message element, Station message element, and > WTP Radio > > Information message element are included. > > > > > > PatC > > _________________________________________________________________ > > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > > > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Sun Jun 29 09:32:03 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EED523A6881 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:32:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.268 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.268 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.269, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_31=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hJ-2MNU1QClt for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:32:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 181893A6850 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:32:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A56DA432ABE for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:32:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03992440133 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:32:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C63D034AC064 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:32:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC87F34AC084 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:32:04 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.117 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:32:04 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,722,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="120035635" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2008 09:32:04 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5TGW47o021785; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:32:04 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5TGW4Hm001499; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:32:04 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:32:04 -0700 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:32:03 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDE1AC@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] AD reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E10 Thread-Index: AcjYWtgtaEqlkrigRIm+/e4lD/SVVABdrsfwAAz8/fA= References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDDCE4@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Jun 2008 16:32:04.0285 (UTC) FILETIME=[AA0ED6D0:01C8DA05] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Capwap] AD reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E10 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Ah, my bad. Well, I would much prefer to put the fields back to their original size, ensuring that we do not break any compatibility issues, and only state that the least three significant bits are used. And yes to the change to priority and the lower case. Ok? PatC -----Original Message----- From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 3:24 AM To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap@frascone.com Subject: RE: [Capwap] AD reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E10 I am afraid that I do not understand the change that is suggested here. My comment was 1. The priority tag is 3 bits (BITS), so what two octets? 2. the name used in the IEEE 802.1 specification is priority and not precedence. Your proposed solution seems now to allocate three octets (BYTES) which is wrong. Also, as per another comment, IEEE 802.1p should be used rather than IEEE 802.1P. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 4:37 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] AD > reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E10 > > The AD Review Comment is: > > E10. Section 6.14 - IEEE 802.1P tag is three bits - why is the > 802.1P > > Precedence Tag two octets? And why is it called Precedence Tag and > not > Priority Tag (same comment for 6.20, 6.22)? > > I want to note first off that while I agree, it does change the packet > format, so this is the first change that actually causes a backward > compatibility issue, but in this case I believe it is necessary. > > > 6.14. IEEE 802.11 Station QoS Profile [...] > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 > 7 8 9 0 1 > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | MAC Address > | > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | MAC Address | 802.1P Priority > Tag | > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > |802.1P Priority Tag > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > [...] > 802.1P Priority Tag: The maximum 802.1P priority value > that the WTP > will allow in the TID field in the extended 802.11e QOS Data > header. > > 6.20. IEEE 802.11 Update Station QoS > [...] > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 > 8 9 0 1 2 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Radio ID | MAC Address | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | MAC Address | DSCP Tag | 802.1P Tag | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | 802.1P Tag | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ [...] > 802.1P Tag: The 802.1P priority value to use if packets are to be > IEEE 802.1P tagged. > > 6.22. IEEE 802.11 WTP Quality of Service [...] > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Queue Depth | CWMin | CWMax | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | CWMax | AIFS | Dot1P Tag | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Dot1P Tag | DSCP Tag | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ [...] > Dot1P Tag: The 802.1P priority value to use if packets are to be > 802.1P tagged. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Sun Jun 29 09:33:39 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27F0D3A6850 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:33:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.081 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.081 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.082, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_31=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oeGBvlbmKXXN for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:33:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C4A23A681A for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:33:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E05CD432AE6 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:33:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEF0E440133 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:33:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9C2034AC064 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:33:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D114E34AC08C for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:33:38 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com (nj300815-nj-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.12.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:33:38 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,722,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="125396900" Received: from unknown (HELO nj300815-nj-erheast.avaya.com) ([198.152.6.5]) by nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2008 12:33:38 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,722,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="219316274" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by nj300815-nj-erheast-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2008 12:33:38 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 18:33:33 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDE1AC@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] AD reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E10 Thread-Index: AcjYWtgtaEqlkrigRIm+/e4lD/SVVABdrsfwAAz8/fAAABA0gA== References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDDCE4@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDE1AC@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] AD reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E10 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 7:32 PM > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); capwap@frascone.com > Subject: RE: [Capwap] AD > reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E10 > > Ah, my bad. Well, I would much prefer to put the fields back > to their original size, ensuring that we do not break any > compatibility issues, and only state that the least three > significant bits are used. > > And yes to the change to priority and the lower case. > > Ok? > > PatC > > -----Original Message----- > From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] > Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 3:24 AM > To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap@frascone.com > Subject: RE: [Capwap] AD > reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E10 > > I am afraid that I do not understand the change that is > suggested here. > > > My comment was > 1. The priority tag is 3 bits (BITS), so what two octets? > 2. the name used in the IEEE 802.1 specification is priority > and not precedence. > > Your proposed solution seems now to allocate three octets > (BYTES) which is wrong. > > Also, as per another comment, IEEE 802.1p should be used > rather than IEEE 802.1P. > > Dan > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > > Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 4:37 PM > > To: capwap@frascone.com > > Subject: [Capwap] AD > > reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E10 > > > > The AD Review Comment is: > > > > E10. Section 6.14 - IEEE 802.1P tag is three bits - why is the > > 802.1P > > > > Precedence Tag two octets? And why is it called > Precedence Tag and > > not > > Priority Tag (same comment for 6.20, 6.22)? > > > > I want to note first off that while I agree, it does change > the packet > > > format, so this is the first change that actually causes a backward > > compatibility issue, but in this case I believe it is necessary. > > > > > > 6.14. IEEE 802.11 Station QoS Profile [...] > > 0 1 2 > 3 > > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 > > 7 8 9 0 1 > > > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > | MAC Address > > | > > > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > | MAC Address | 802.1P Priority > > Tag | > > > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > |802.1P Priority Tag > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > [...] > > 802.1P Priority Tag: The maximum 802.1P priority value > > that the WTP > > will allow in the TID field in the extended 802.11e QOS Data > > header. > > > > 6.20. IEEE 802.11 Update Station QoS > > [...] > > 0 1 2 3 > > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 > > 8 9 0 1 2 > > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > | Radio ID | MAC Address > | > > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > | MAC Address | DSCP Tag | > 802.1P Tag | > > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > | 802.1P Tag | > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ [...] > > 802.1P Tag: The 802.1P priority value to use if > packets are to be > > IEEE 802.1P tagged. > > > > 6.22. IEEE 802.11 WTP Quality of Service [...] > > 0 1 2 3 > > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 > 7 8 9 0 1 > > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > | Queue Depth | CWMin | > CWMax | > > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > | CWMax | AIFS | Dot1P Tag > | > > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > | Dot1P Tag | DSCP Tag | > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ [...] > > Dot1P Tag: The 802.1P priority value to use if packets > are to be > > 802.1P tagged. > > > > > > PatC > > _________________________________________________________________ > > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > > > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Sun Jun 29 09:46:05 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87B033A690B for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:46:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.561 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.561 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.038, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3G3Iv2i6szFm for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:46:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92FF33A6850 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:46:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2676F432C5C for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:46:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32A6D440160 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:46:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 108B634AC09B for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:46:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5D3434AC064 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:46:07 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.117 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:46:07 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,722,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="120038625" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2008 09:46:07 -0700 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5TGk7hj027948 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:46:07 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5TGk7em024816 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:46:07 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:46:07 -0700 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:46:06 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDE1AD@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Action Required: Latest status of CAPWAP issues Thread-Index: AcjaB5/Idc6e/iWjQDioqQouPuN9yA== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Jun 2008 16:46:07.0217 (UTC) FILETIME=[A07C0E10:01C8DA07] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] Action Required: Latest status of CAPWAP issues X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com All, Here is the update on the issues in tracker: #74: This is based on Issue 33 of the base draft. I believe I am waiting for Dan to provide his response. #102: I am waiting for Yong Zhang to respond to the proposed change #105: I am waiting for Yong Zhang to response to the new intro text #106: I am waiting for the WG to respond to this proposed change on the use of timers #107: I am waiting for the WG to respond to this proposed change on the use of timers #119: Pat to address this issue wrt roll over times #123: Pat to address in terminology section #131: Pat and Dan have agreement, which I will implement #133: Pat to clean up abstract of base document I hope to get the ones pending completed today. Thanks again for everyone's help in getting this closed asap. My goal is to get the updated drafts submitted prior to the 7/14 deadline. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Sun Jun 29 10:01:23 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFD293A6880 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 10:01:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.379 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.379 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.220, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BFOajZaXAtIm for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 10:01:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E93A13A695C for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 10:01:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A2C8432F48 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 10:01:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3892A440164 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 10:01:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 031C334AC094 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 10:01:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D345534AC09D for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 10:01:23 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com (nj300815-nj-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.12.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 10:01:21 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,723,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="125398421" Received: from unknown (HELO nj300815-nj-erheast.avaya.com) ([198.152.6.5]) by nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2008 13:01:12 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,723,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="219320287" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by nj300815-nj-erheast-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2008 13:01:11 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 19:01:07 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDE1AD@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] Action Required: Latest status of CAPWAP issues Thread-Index: AcjaB5/Idc6e/iWjQDioqQouPuN9yAAAd1Xg References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDE1AD@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] Action Required: Latest status of CAPWAP issues X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com #74 - the proposed change is OK with me (I actually thought that you were waiting for confirmation from the WG) Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 7:46 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] Action Required: Latest status of CAPWAP issues > > All, > > Here is the update on the issues in tracker: > > #74: This is based on Issue 33 of the base draft. I believe I > am waiting for Dan to provide his response. > #102: I am waiting for Yong Zhang to respond to the proposed change > #105: I am waiting for Yong Zhang to response to the new intro text > #106: I am waiting for the WG to respond to this proposed > change on the use of timers > #107: I am waiting for the WG to respond to this proposed > change on the use of timers > #119: Pat to address this issue wrt roll over times > #123: Pat to address in terminology section > #131: Pat and Dan have agreement, which I will implement > #133: Pat to clean up abstract of base document > > I hope to get the ones pending completed today. > > Thanks again for everyone's help in getting this closed asap. > My goal is to get the updated drafts submitted prior to the > 7/14 deadline. > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Sun Jun 29 11:36:47 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7086F3A67D8 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 11:36:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K2h1BwOpDRGB for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 11:36:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 850313A69B7 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 11:35:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87DEE433D34 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 11:35:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D5BA440147 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 11:35:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EE9434AC08E for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 11:35:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C069F34AC093 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 11:35:42 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com (nj300815-nj-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.12.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 11:35:42 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,723,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="125402432" Received: from unknown (HELO nj300815-nj-erheast.avaya.com) ([198.152.6.5]) by nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2008 14:35:41 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,723,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="219330538" Received: from unknown (HELO 306181ANEX2.global.avaya.com) ([135.9.6.103]) by nj300815-nj-erheast-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2008 14:35:41 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 12:35:36 -0600 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] AD review of draft-ietf-capwap-threat-analysis-01 Thread-Index: AcjV9Att7icrvuvCQjSmfObCnOWnXgEH9PdA References: From: "Mani, Mahalingam (Mani)" To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] AD review of draft-ietf-capwap-threat-analysis-01 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com The following is the response from myself (as well as portions from Scott Kelly); neither of the editors are reachable - except Scott briefly. Being the WG's document, others in the list also should also be able to respond to this. The editors will, as they get to see this, respond soon. (Scott may this coming week). Regards, -mani -----Original Message----- From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 5:16 AM To: capwap@frascone.com Subject: [Capwap] AD review of draft-ietf-capwap-threat-analysis-01 Please find below the AD Review of draft-ietf-capwap-threat-analysis-01. I believe that the document is mature and stable. I found a small number of issues which are grouped in Technical and Editorial. As none of them has a dramatic impact or would require very consistent editing I suggest to consider these comments as Last Call comments, and proceed directly to IETF Last Call with this document. T1. Did the editors and the Working Group consider capitalizing RECOMMENDED and NOT RECOMMENDED as per RFC2119 when dealing with the recommended or not recommended practices described in Sections 4.2 and 4.3? If they did I would be interested to hear why they chose not to use capitalization. [Mani, Mahalingam (Mani)] we did not consider capitalizing then. The expectation on this draft was this to be a descriptive analysis of what would have become too large a Security Considerations section for the (base and binding) protocols. The prescriptive notations, it is expected, in the summarized (Security Considerations) sections of the protocol drafts (and, I believe, they are). T2. Section 8 - I am missing from the list of vulnerabilities introduced by CAPWAP the vulnerabilities introduced by the CAPWAP MIB (or other) management interface. By exposing management objects related to the CAPWAP protocol the management interface exposes information otherwise not accessible to managers of 'fat' APs that a CAPWAP deployment replaces. [Mani, Mahalingam (Mani)] Scott's comments: " With respect to snmp, as you note, this is new work. We did not address capwap device (i.e. AC) management interfaces, because these are outside the scope of capwap -- that is, capwap manages APs, but it is not used to manage ACs. It seems reasonable to assume that this is out of scope for a capwap threat analysis SNMP does change this a bit, but only if we allow AP management/monitoring, in which case it becomes a parallel (albeit less capable) management channel." E1. [80211I], [80211SEC] and [8021X] are fundamental for the understanding of this document. I suggest that they are moved to Normative References. [Mani, Mahalingam (Mani)] this should not be an issue. Can this be done in AUTH48 or RFC-Ed stage? E2. It would be appropriate to include a note drawing the attention to the fact that this document is based on the 2004 edition of the IEEE 802.1X standard, and that a new version of the protocol is under development in IEEE 802.1X at the time of the development of this document. [Mani, Mahalingam (Mani)] [Mani, Mahalingam (Mani)] the reference clearly notes 2004 version. By the time the revised 802.1X in progress emerges, it will carry 2008 or 2009 (more likely). Hopefully, this RFC will carry 2008 timestamp - enough to make the distinction. Is this light informational change introducible in AUTH48 or without another spin of the draft? E3. Please be explicit in the Abstract section about the fact that the scope of the document is CAPWAP deployments that will use the IEEE 802.11 binding [Mani, Mahalingam (Mani)] agreed - though the base protocol related analysis is commonly applicable. Regards, Dan _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Sun Jun 29 21:49:19 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 069AC3A68DE for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:49:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.562 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.562 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.037, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LW1aeNFlIr35 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:49:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17B6C3A68B7 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:49:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 804371C40F68 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:49:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BFAB440091 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:49:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46F7034AC081 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:49:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82BBC34AC08E for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:49:16 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.70 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:49:16 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,725,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="46355862" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2008 21:49:14 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5U4nEp6024947 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:49:14 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5U4nELO006343 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 04:49:14 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:49:14 -0700 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:49:14 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDE224@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Issue 133: Remove references from base spec abstract Thread-Index: AcjaMx1dKPQddFNIRAK/5w09sF0xXg== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Jun 2008 04:49:14.0120 (UTC) FILETIME=[A5181080:01C8DA6C] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] Issue 133: Remove references from base spec abstract X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com All, As discussed in a separate thread, the abstract in the base spec should not include any references. Given this, the current abstract didn't make much sense, so I have made some small modifications, and moved some of the text to the introduction. Abstract This specification defines the Control And Provisioning of Wireless Access Points (CAPWAP) Protocol. The CAPWAP protocol meets the Objectives for Control and Provisioning of Wireless Access Points (CAPWAP). The CAPWAP protocol is designed to be flexible, allowing it to be used for a variety of wireless technologies. This document describes the base CAPWAP protocol, while separate binding extensions will enable its use with additional wireless technologies. 1.0 Introduction This document describes the CAPWAP Protocol, a standard, interoperable protocol which enables an Access Controller (AC) to manage a collection of Wireless Termination Points (WTPs). The CAPWAP protocol is defined to be independent of layer 2 technology, and meets the Objectives for Control and Provisioning of Wireless Access Points (CAPWAP) [RFC4564]. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Sun Jun 29 21:49:45 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 157113A68B7 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:49:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.563 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.563 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.036, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AZBDr8NyIqGV for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:49:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CBE63A68DE for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:49:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E5C11C40F5F for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:49:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB122440091 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:49:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A47B34AC09E for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:49:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB67B34AC09B for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:49:20 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.117 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:49:20 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,725,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="120197762" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2008 21:49:11 -0700 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5U4nBWw024921 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:49:11 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5U4nBUe018024 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 04:49:11 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:49:11 -0700 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:49:11 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDE222@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: AD review ofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E3 Thread-Index: AcjaHR0SVRopFvq9RES5LMnpGJdDLw== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Jun 2008 04:49:11.0417 (UTC) FILETIME=[A37B9E90:01C8DA6C] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] AD review ofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E3 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com The AD Review Comment is: E3. There are a lot of acronyms and terms mostly from the IEEE 802.11 realm that are neither expanded, not explained - RSN, WMM, EDCA, OFDM are only part of them. I suggest to expand the terminology section to add them I have made the changes throughout the document, but opted to expand on the acronyms, and simply point to the IEEE 802.11-2007 spec at the beginning of the terminology section (otherwise, we would simply cut/paste, which seems unnecessary). There are a good number of changes, and since they are all editorial in nature, I will not bother to include each one of them here. I do want to note, however, that I noticed that we were including a reference to the 802.11i-2004 spec, which was included into the 802.11-2007 spec, so I have removed/replaced that reference where it existed. 1.3. Terminology [...] This section contains definitions for terms used frequently throughout this document. However, many additional definitions can be found in [IEEE.802-11.2007]. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Sun Jun 29 21:49:45 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C90A3A68DE for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:49:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.264 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.264 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.265, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_31=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 88wk-Rpl4KdZ for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:49:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE9D93A6975 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:49:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46CF11C40FA4 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:49:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D808440091 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:49:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 085C134AC097 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:49:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FE1934AC09D for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:49:22 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.117 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:49:21 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,725,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="120197769" Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2008 21:49:15 -0700 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5U4nCAt029258 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:49:12 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5U4nDp7010508 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 04:49:13 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:49:12 -0700 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:49:12 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDE223@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: AD review ofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E11 Thread-Index: AcjaMdKsEu9taCBdRuivQXg25mmbWQ== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Jun 2008 04:49:12.0883 (UTC) FILETIME=[A45B5030:01C8DA6C] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] AD review ofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E11 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Given the agreement between Dan and I to keep the 802.1p specific fields in the message elements compatible with the -10 version, and simply add text regarding the fact that only three bits were used, I am including the updated text here. Again, this solution does not change any backward compatibility with the older spec, while addressing the concerns raised. Note that I have also changed the capitalization of the 802.1p standard to use lower case, and changed the term precedence to priority. 6.14. IEEE 802.11 Station QoS Profile [...] 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | MAC Address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | MAC Address | 802.1p Priority Tag | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ [...] 802.1p Priority Tag: The maximum 802.1p Priority value that the WTP will allow in the Traffic Identifier (TID) field in the extended 802.11e QOS Data header. Only the three least significant bits of this field are valid, while the remaining bits MUST be set to zero (0). 6.20. IEEE 802.11 Update Station QoS [...] 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Radio ID | MAC Address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | MAC Address | DSCP Tag | 802.1p Tag | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ [...] 802.1p Tag: The 802.1p priority value to use if packets are to be IEEE 802.1p tagged. Only the three least significant bits of this field are valid, while the remaining bits MUST be set to zero (0). 6.22. IEEE 802.11 WTP Quality of Service [...] 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Queue Depth | CWMin | CWMax | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | CWMax | AIFS | Dot1P Tag | DSCP Tag | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ [...] Dot1p Tag: The 802.1p priority value to use if packets are to be 802.1p tagged. Only the three least significant bits of this field are valid, while the remaining bits MUST be set to zero (0). PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Sun Jun 29 21:49:46 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 277D33A68DE for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:49:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.558 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.558 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.041, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zKN8rWQW7jYR for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:49:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A1BD3A68B7 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:49:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B87E51C40FBC for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:49:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30D484400FE for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:49:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 092D334AC09B for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:49:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B68634AC08E for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:49:21 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.117 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:49:21 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,725,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="120197771" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2008 21:49:15 -0700 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5U4nF3C024963; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:49:15 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5U4nFVC010530; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 04:49:15 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:49:15 -0700 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:49:15 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDE225@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] AD reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 T9 Thread-Index: AcjZ/8as9G8X8Bk1RLW+sD0TmmXaOwAA7OIgAAwd9VA= References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDE1A8@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Jun 2008 04:49:15.0432 (UTC) FILETIME=[A5E04280:01C8DA6C] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Capwap] AD reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 T9 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com I'm ok including this text, but I'm not sure that everyone will understand its intended meaning. What about "AC implementations should provide some notification, using whatever means are available (e.g., syslog, CLI notification), when a counter has rolled over."? PatC -----Original Message----- From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 9:21 AM To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap@frascone.com Subject: RE: [Capwap] AD reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 T9 All this is good. About the rollover time, the reason it is desirable to be included in specifications is for the receiving application, firmware or human to know what is the largest interval they need to look into the value of the object in order to make sure that no two rollover events are being missed. Can we add something like 'Applications or human operators using these counters need to be aware about the minimal possible times between rollover events in order to make sure that no consecutive rollover events are missed.'? Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 6:50 PM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] AD > reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 T9 > > The AD Review Comment is: > > T9. Section 6.16 - for all statistics counters in this message - > explain 1. do > they start counting from 0 at initialization? What is the behavior > when the > device loses power? What is the behavior when they reach maximal > value? > Minimal interval between two rollover events > > I'm not sure that I'm addressing your last point, especially since it > is rather difficult to gauge the interval, because while a couple of > fields representing received/transmitted packets, others represent > events that will occur vary infrequently. So I am proposing the > following, but if this is not sufficient, let me know what you would > like me to provide. I can do quick math for the tx/rx fields, assuming > full throttle, but others would be nothing more than a "wild guess". > > > 6.16. IEEE 802.11 Statistics > > The IEEE 802.11 Statistics message element is sent by the WTP to > transmit its current statistics, and contains the following fields. > All of the fields in this message element are set to zero upon WTP > initialization. The fields will roll over when they reach their > maximum value of 65535. Due to the nature of each counter > representing different data points, the roll over event will vary > greatly across each field. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Mon Jun 30 04:29:52 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8EF23A68E0 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 04:29:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.387 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.387 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.212, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7vpR1U0-QJMe for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 04:29:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF0B83A689E for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 04:29:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED7DE4318A4 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 04:30:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7F94440124 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 04:29:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AFCB34AC064 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 04:29:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FB5A34AC09D for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 04:29:51 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Sender first seen 13 days 17:26:14 ago / dynamic or unknown reverse DNS) Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 04:29:51 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,727,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="113086462" Received: from unknown (HELO nj300815-nj-erheast.avaya.com) ([198.152.6.5]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 30 Jun 2008 07:29:48 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,727,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="219615536" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by nj300815-nj-erheast-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 30 Jun 2008 07:29:48 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 13:29:40 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDE225@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] AD reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 T9 Thread-Index: AcjZ/8as9G8X8Bk1RLW+sD0TmmXaOwAA7OIgAAwd9VAAHBOYQA== References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDE1A8@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDE225@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] AD reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 T9 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com You are actually going one step further and beyond what I intended, by placing a new requirement on the AC. What I had in mind is documenting in the specification the need for application awareness about rollovers in the ACs, but not the automation of the process by using notifications. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 7:49 AM > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); capwap@frascone.com > Subject: RE: [Capwap] AD > reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 T9 > > I'm ok including this text, but I'm not sure that everyone > will understand its intended meaning. What about "AC > implementations should provide some notification, using > whatever means are available (e.g., syslog, CLI > notification), when a counter has rolled over."? > > PatC > > -----Original Message----- > From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] > Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 9:21 AM > To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap@frascone.com > Subject: RE: [Capwap] AD > reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 T9 > > All this is good. About the rollover time, the reason it is > desirable to be included in specifications is for the > receiving application, firmware or human to know what is the > largest interval they need to look into the value of the > object in order to make sure that no two rollover events are > being missed. Can we add something like 'Applications or > human operators using these counters need to be aware about > the minimal possible times between rollover events in order > to make sure that no consecutive rollover events are missed.'? > > Dan > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > > Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 6:50 PM > > To: capwap@frascone.com > > Subject: [Capwap] AD > > reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 T9 > > > > The AD Review Comment is: > > > > T9. Section 6.16 - for all statistics counters in this message - > > explain 1. do > > they start counting from 0 at initialization? What is > the behavior > > when the > > device loses power? What is the behavior when they reach maximal > > value? > > Minimal interval between two rollover events > > > > I'm not sure that I'm addressing your last point, > especially since it > > is rather difficult to gauge the interval, because while a > couple of > > fields representing received/transmitted packets, others represent > > events that will occur vary infrequently. So I am proposing the > > following, but if this is not sufficient, let me know what > you would > > like me to provide. I can do quick math for the tx/rx > fields, assuming > > > full throttle, but others would be nothing more than a "wild guess". > > > > > > 6.16. IEEE 802.11 Statistics > > > > The IEEE 802.11 Statistics message element is sent by the WTP to > > transmit its current statistics, and contains the > following fields. > > All of the fields in this message element are set to > zero upon WTP > > initialization. The fields will roll over when they reach their > > maximum value of 65535. Due to the nature of each counter > > representing different data points, the roll over event will vary > > greatly across each field. > > > > > > PatC > > _________________________________________________________________ > > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > > > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Mon Jun 30 05:04:55 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FD093A6AC8 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 05:04:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.891 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.891 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.708, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mmrXXHLQ4SCP for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 05:04:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A0203A6AAA for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 05:04:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2CA6431F14 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 05:05:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81EEF44012D for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 05:04:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AD9034AC08B for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 05:04:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5E1D34AC08E for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 05:04:49 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (64.170.98.32 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org [64.170.98.32]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 05:04:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 30) id 6A2B928C0EE; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 05:04:36 -0700 (PDT) X-idtracker: yes To: IETF-Announce From: The IESG Message-Id: <20080630120437.6A2B928C0EE@core3.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 05:04:37 -0700 (PDT) Cc: capwap@frascone.com Subject: [Capwap] Last Call: draft-ietf-capwap-dhc-ac-option (CAPWAP Access Controller DHCP Option) to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com The IESG has received a request from the Control And Provisioning of Wireless Access Points WG (capwap) to consider the following document: - 'CAPWAP Access Controller DHCP Option ' as a Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2008-07-14. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. The file can be obtained via http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-capwap-dhc-ac-option-01.txt IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=16353&rfc_flag=0 _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Mon Jun 30 05:05:20 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43BE928C126 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 05:05:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.068 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.068 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.531, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vIY07aSlpywM for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 05:05:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66B7128C13A for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 05:05:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E1C6432171 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 05:05:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFAD444012D for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 05:05:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2E7534AC09C for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 05:05:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2B7234AC076 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 05:05:22 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (64.170.98.32 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from mail.ietf.org (mail.ietf.org [64.170.98.32]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 05:05:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 30) id 993A43A6AAA; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 05:05:10 -0700 (PDT) X-idtracker: yes To: IETF-Announce From: The IESG Message-Id: <20080630120510.993A43A6AAA@core3.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 05:05:10 -0700 (PDT) Cc: capwap@frascone.com Subject: [Capwap] Last Call: draft-ietf-capwap-threat-analysis (CAPWAP Threat Analysis for IEEE 802.11 Deployments) to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com The IESG has received a request from the Control And Provisioning of Wireless Access Points WG (capwap) to consider the following document: - 'CAPWAP Threat Analysis for IEEE 802.11 Deployments ' as an Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2008-07-14. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. The file can be obtained via http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-capwap-threat-analysis-01.txt IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=15669&rfc_flag=0 _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Mon Jun 30 05:13:05 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAAE73A68C0 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 05:13:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.394 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.394 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.205, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eBzbhEh0uf-j for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 05:13:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E74BE3A6889 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 05:13:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F5434321F1 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 05:13:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8ABA44012D for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 05:13:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82C6A34AC076 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 05:13:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 312AD34AC08E for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 05:13:06 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Sender first seen 13 days 18:09:29 ago / dynamic or unknown reverse DNS) Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 05:13:05 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,727,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="113090473" Received: from unknown (HELO nj300815-nj-erheast.avaya.com) ([198.152.6.5]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 30 Jun 2008 08:12:55 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,727,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="219633554" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by nj300815-nj-erheast-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 30 Jun 2008 08:12:54 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:12:51 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDE222@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] AD reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E3 Thread-Index: AcjaHR0SVRopFvq9RES5LMnpGJdDLwAjXqxA References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDE222@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] AD reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E3 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 7:49 AM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] AD > reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 E3 > > The AD Review Comment is: > > E3. There are a lot of acronyms and terms mostly from the > IEEE 802.11 realm > that are neither expanded, not explained - RSN, WMM, EDCA, > OFDM are only part > of them. I suggest to expand the terminology section to add them > > I have made the changes throughout the document, but opted to > expand on the acronyms, and simply point to the IEEE > 802.11-2007 spec at the beginning of the terminology section > (otherwise, we would simply cut/paste, which seems > unnecessary). There are a good number of changes, and since > they are all editorial in nature, I will not bother to > include each one of them here. I do want to note, however, > that I noticed that we were including a reference to the > 802.11i-2004 spec, which was included into the 802.11-2007 > spec, so I have removed/replaced that reference where it existed. > > > 1.3. Terminology > [...] > This section contains definitions for terms used frequently > throughout this document. However, many additional > definitions can be > found in [IEEE.802-11.2007]. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Mon Jun 30 05:13:46 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EFA53A6868 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 05:13:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.397 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.397 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.202, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xw8IXlcuGVH5 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 05:13:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CE773A6AC3 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 05:13:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B38EC43212F for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 05:13:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C4EC44012D for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 05:13:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E505134AC082 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 05:13:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AE3634AC09C for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 05:13:41 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Sender first seen 13 days 18:10:04 ago / dynamic or unknown reverse DNS) Received: from de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com (de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.71.100]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 05:13:41 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,727,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="113090544" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by de307622-de-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 30 Jun 2008 08:13:40 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,727,1204520400"; d="scan'208";a="226458169" Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.14]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 30 Jun 2008 08:13:39 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:13:36 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDE224@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] Issue 133: Remove references from base spec abstract Thread-Index: AcjaMx1dKPQddFNIRAK/5w09sF0xXgAd5M2Q References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDE224@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" , Subject: Re: [Capwap] Issue 133: Remove references from base spec abstract X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Ok with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 7:49 AM > To: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: [Capwap] Issue 133: Remove references from base spec abstract > > All, > > As discussed in a separate thread, the abstract in the base > spec should not include any references. Given this, the > current abstract didn't make much sense, so I have made some > small modifications, and moved some of the text to the introduction. > > > Abstract > This specification defines the Control And Provisioning of > Wireless Access Points (CAPWAP) Protocol. The CAPWAP > protocol meets the > Objectives for Control and Provisioning of Wireless Access > Points (CAPWAP). > The CAPWAP protocol is designed to be flexible, allowing > it to be used for > a variety of wireless technologies. This document > describes the base > CAPWAP protocol, while separate binding extensions will > enable its use > with additional wireless technologies. > > 1.0 Introduction > This document describes the CAPWAP Protocol, a standard, > interoperable protocol which enables an Access Controller > (AC) to manage > a collection of Wireless Termination Points (WTPs). The > CAPWAP protocol > is defined to be independent of layer 2 technology, and meets the > Objectives for Control and Provisioning of Wireless Access Points > (CAPWAP) [RFC4564]. > > > PatC > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Mon Jun 30 08:23:50 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07A8F3A690F for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 08:23:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RVddHaKpBVZM for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 08:23:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1A903A6812 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 08:23:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF107433CD9 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 08:24:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CEF6440171 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 08:23:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAAFD34AC019 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 08:23:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B419834AC055 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 08:23:46 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from yw-out-1718.google.com (yw-out-1718.google.com [74.125.46.154]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 08:23:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yw-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 6so714519ywa.80 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 08:23:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.212.19 with SMTP id k19mr1943698wfg.142.1214839422329; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 08:23:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.143.3.6 with HTTP; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 08:23:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 08:23:42 -0700 From: "Yong Zhang" To: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" In-Reply-To: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDD775@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205EFE528@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205F5CDE1@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDD775@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> Cc: capwap@frascone.com Subject: Re: [Capwap] New Issue 105: Intro to section 4.8 incorrect X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com This change is OK for me. Yong On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 4:43 AM, Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) wrote: > Yes, you have a point that the introduction to section 4.8 is incorrect. > It also states that the variables in the section are valid when the WTP > does discovery of the AC, while many of the variables have nothing to do > with AC discovery. I am therefore proposing: > > > This section defines the CAPWAP protocol variables, which are used > for various protocol functions. Some of these variables are > configurable, while others are counters or have a fixed value. For > non > counter related variables, default values are specified. However, > when a WTP's variable configuration is explicitly overridden by an > AC, > the WTP MUST save the new value. > > > PatC > -----Original Message----- > From: Yong Zhang [mailto:yozhang@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 11:08 AM > To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) > Cc: capwap@frascone.com > Subject: Re: [Capwap] questions > ondraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-specification-10.txt > > For my questiion4. I didn't notice 4.8.7 exist. So it does not need to > change the name. > > The first sentence in 4.8 said "A WTP or AC that implements the CAPWAP > Discovery phase MUST allow for > the following variables to be configured by system management". > Maybe you need to rephrase this, since 4.8.2/3/4/9 are not configurable. > > Thanks! > > Yong > > On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 10:50 AM, Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) > wrote: >> 1. 4.7.10 MaxFailedDTLSSessionRetry is not a timer. Should it be put >> in 4.8? >> Correct, and this was already raised by Dan in his review and it > >> has been moved to 4.8 already. >> >> 2. 4.8.2/3/4 are running time counters. They are not configurable. >> Should they be removed from here? >> No, these are counters, and I believe they are appropriate in >> this section. Yes, they are not configurable. >> >> 3. 4.8.8 ReportInterval. Is it a CAPWAP timer? Should it be in 4.7? >> This one seems not defined in the state machine transition. Is this >> for >> 4.7.14 StatisticsTimer? >> Yes, this needs to move to section 4.7, and it is referenced in >> the Decryption Error Report message element. I have created issue 104 >> as an editorial issue. >> >> 4. 4.8.9 RetransmitCount. I think it should be called >> MaxRetransmitCount. And "This is a monotonically increasing counter" >> need to be removed. >> I'm ok changing the name if people think it provides more > clarity. >> However, it is a monotonically increasing counter - everytime a packet > >> is transmitted, a RetransmitCount++ instruction is required. >> >> PatC >> > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Mon Jun 30 08:50:37 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D15A3A68D0 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 08:50:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JJgBiwPvYsZy for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 08:50:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 954623A67FA for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 08:50:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6181433D08 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 08:50:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F1CD4400DA for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 08:50:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27B7B34AC07B for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 08:50:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B937434AC071 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 08:49:56 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 1 (Low); Accepted (Neutral) Received: from yx-out-1718.google.com (yx-out-1718.google.com [74.125.44.153]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 08:49:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yx-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 3so253937yxi.80 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 08:49:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.143.30.10 with SMTP id h10mr1965232wfj.7.1214840993859; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 08:49:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.143.3.6 with HTTP; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 08:49:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 08:49:53 -0700 From: "Yong Zhang" To: capwap@frascone.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Subject: [Capwap] AC state transition: Join to Image Data/Configure in capwap spec draft 10 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com With the changes for issue 102, the state transition still has problems. Here is the current text: Join to Image Data (f): AC: This state transition occurs when the AC receives the Image > Data Request message from the WTP, after having sent its Join > Response to the WTP. Join to Configure (g): AC: This state transition occurs immediately after the AC transmits the Join Response message to the WTP. Join will only go to Configure. Is the Configure Status message a MUST sent message by WTP? If it is, we can change the (g) to Join to Configure (g): AC: This state transition occurs when the AC receives the Configure Status message from the WTP, after having sent its Join Response to the WTP. _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Mon Jun 30 10:16:46 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76B623A67EF for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:16:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.559 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.559 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.040, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1kpy6---gERn for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:16:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 525AA3A6868 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:16:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45BDA1C40F84 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:16:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FF8D440101 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:16:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18F8734AC04D for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:16:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A7B334AC016 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:16:38 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.71 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:16:38 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,728,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="61471950" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Jun 2008 10:16:38 -0700 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5UHGcBl016729; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:16:38 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5UHGbBh006386; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:16:37 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:16:37 -0700 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:16:33 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A20607B521@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Capwap] ADreviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 T9 Thread-Index: AcjZ/8as9G8X8Bk1RLW+sD0TmmXaOwAA7OIgAAwd9VAAHBOYQAAML8hg References: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDE1A8@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com><4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A205FDE225@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Jun 2008 17:16:37.0277 (UTC) FILETIME=[0DB2CCD0:01C8DAD5] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Subject: Re: [Capwap] ADreviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 T9 X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Ok, then if you believe your original sentence addresses your comment, I'll go with it and consider this issue closed. PatC -----Original Message----- From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 4:30 AM To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap@frascone.com Subject: Re: [Capwap] ADreviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 T9 You are actually going one step further and beyond what I intended, by placing a new requirement on the AC. What I had in mind is documenting in the specification the need for application awareness about rollovers in the ACs, but not the automation of the process by using notifications. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 7:49 AM > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); capwap@frascone.com > Subject: RE: [Capwap] AD > reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 T9 > > I'm ok including this text, but I'm not sure that everyone will > understand its intended meaning. What about "AC implementations should > provide some notification, using whatever means are available (e.g., > syslog, CLI notification), when a counter has rolled over."? > > PatC > > -----Original Message----- > From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca@avaya.com] > Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 9:21 AM > To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap@frascone.com > Subject: RE: [Capwap] AD > reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 T9 > > All this is good. About the rollover time, the reason it is desirable > to be included in specifications is for the receiving application, > firmware or human to know what is the largest interval they need to > look into the value of the object in order to make sure that no two > rollover events are being missed. Can we add something like > 'Applications or human operators using these counters need to be aware > about the minimal possible times between rollover events in order to > make sure that no consecutive rollover events are missed.'? > > Dan > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun@cisco.com] > > Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 6:50 PM > > To: capwap@frascone.com > > Subject: [Capwap] AD > > reviewofdraft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-06 T9 > > > > The AD Review Comment is: > > > > T9. Section 6.16 - for all statistics counters in this message - > > explain 1. do > > they start counting from 0 at initialization? What is > the behavior > > when the > > device loses power? What is the behavior when they reach maximal > > value? > > Minimal interval between two rollover events > > > > I'm not sure that I'm addressing your last point, > especially since it > > is rather difficult to gauge the interval, because while a > couple of > > fields representing received/transmitted packets, others represent > > events that will occur vary infrequently. So I am proposing the > > following, but if this is not sufficient, let me know what > you would > > like me to provide. I can do quick math for the tx/rx > fields, assuming > > > full throttle, but others would be nothing more than a "wild guess". > > > > > > 6.16. IEEE 802.11 Statistics > > > > The IEEE 802.11 Statistics message element is sent by the WTP to > > transmit its current statistics, and contains the > following fields. > > All of the fields in this message element are set to > zero upon WTP > > initialization. The fields will roll over when they reach their > > maximum value of 65535. Due to the nature of each counter > > representing different data points, the roll over event will vary > > greatly across each field. > > > > > > PatC > > _________________________________________________________________ > > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > > > _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Mon Jun 30 10:33:36 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B31663A6822 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:33:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.58 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.019, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6SLQt8wf57ym for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:33:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C078B3A68FD for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:33:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB5621C40F94 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:33:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B805440102 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:33:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE69A3610003 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:33:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFD3C34AC084 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:33:29 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.117 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:33:29 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,728,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="120478246" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Jun 2008 10:26:00 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5UHQ0Hu010763 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:26:00 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5UHPu26011287 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:25:59 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:25:58 -0700 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:25:57 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A20607B53C@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: New Issue 134: Image Data to Reset state machine issue Thread-Index: Acja1lu1M2ej1/KyScKT6gmmwOQWdg== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Jun 2008 17:25:58.0350 (UTC) FILETIME=[5C1FBEE0:01C8DAD6] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] New Issue 134: Image Data to Reset state machine issue X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com All, Yong has raised an issue to me privately that needs to be addressed in the base spec. Basically, the state machine transition from the Image Data to Reset state does not include a case where it occurs when the image was successfully transferred. I believe most (if not all) implementors would have done the right thing, but it is a good idea to be specific. The new text is: Image Data to Reset (k): This state transition is used to reset the DTLS connection prior to restarting the WTP after an image download. [...] AC: The AC enters the Reset state either when the image transfer has successfully completed, an error occurs during the image download process or if the ImageDataStartTimer timer expires. PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Mon Jun 30 10:34:37 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C32A93A6889 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:34:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.58 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.019, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fsP-em8q2u-R for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:34:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08D703A6822 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:34:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 056D51C40F80 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:34:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E0D5440102 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:34:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6976734AC033 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:34:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5586D34AC049 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:34:36 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.117 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:34:36 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,728,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="120478658" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Jun 2008 10:26:44 -0700 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m5UHQi7D012293 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:26:44 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m5UHQglV020976 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:26:44 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:26:34 -0700 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:26:33 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A20607B53E@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: New issue 135: Incorrect Reset to DTLS Teardown state transition Thread-Index: Acja1nEneX2vsipERfePJYDnRtIHhw== From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Jun 2008 17:26:34.0255 (UTC) FILETIME=[718669F0:01C8DAD6] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] New issue 135: Incorrect Reset to DTLS Teardown state transition X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com All, Yong raised an issue to me privately where the state transition is currently incorrect as it states that the WTP receives the Reset Response, while it should be the AC. So while changing the text, I needed to make a change to make sure that the AC is the one that initiates the DTLSShutdown when it receives the Reset Response. This would avoid a race condition where both the WTP and the AC attempt to shutdown the session at the same time, and it also ensures that the orderly cleanup occurs after the AC has received the Reset Response. The new text is: Reset to DTLS Teardown (s): This transition occurs when the CAPWAP reset is complete, to terminate the DTLS session. WTP: This state transition occurs when the WTP transmits a Reset Response message. The WTP does not invoke the DTLSShutdown command (see Section 2.3.2.1). AC: This state transition occurs when the AC Receives a Reset Response message. This causes the AC to initiate the DTLSShutdown command (see Section 2.3.2.1). PatC _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap From capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Mon Jun 30 17:17:13 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 547C43A6951 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:17:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.58 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.019, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tYN0mtMGCDME for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:17:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.mail.tigertech.net (hermes.mail.tigertech.net [64.62.209.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 467713A681F for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:17:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hermes.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC9CC439FDB for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:17:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hgblob.mail.tigertech.net (mx1.tigertech.net [64.62.209.31]) by mx2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D974144011D for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:17:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B798034AC049 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:17:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hgblob.tigertech.net Received: from mx1.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7D0634AC05A for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:17:12 -0700 (PDT) X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (Low); Whitelisted (171.71.176.71 whitelisted by list.dnswl.org 9.2) Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by mx1.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:17:12 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,729,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="61623238" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Jun 2008 17:17:04 -0700 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m610H4td001167; Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:17:04 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m610H473023123; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 00:17:04 GMT Received: from xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.85]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:17:03 -0700 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:17:02 -0700 Message-ID: <4FF84B0BC277FF45AA27FE969DD956A20607B86F@xmb-sjc-235.amer.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: New Issue 136: The AC State Machine never gets from Join to Image Data Thread-Index: AcjayRea1/SaaCjSQACrPBiGoSeHFgAQ8PIg References: From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" To: "Yong Zhang" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Jul 2008 00:17:03.0844 (UTC) FILETIME=[C9E77240:01C8DB0F] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=pcalhoun@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Subject: [Capwap] New Issue 136: The AC State Machine never gets from Join to Image Data X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com Interesting catch. Yes, you are correct that the text was misleading, and required one to guess. This does need to be fixed, and I've created a new issue 136 to deal with it. The approach you propose is a reasonable one, but it uncovered another issue which is that the ChangeStatePendingTimer was never stopped, which is a bug, so I have fixed that as well. The new text would look like: Join to Configure (g): This state transition is used by the WTP and the AC to exchange configuration information. [...] AC: This state transition occurs when it receives the Configuration Status message from the WTP (see Section 8.2), which MAY include specific message elements to override the WTP's configuration. The AC transmits the Configuration Status Response message (see Section 8.3) and starts the ChangeStatePendingTimer timer (see Section 4.7). Configure to Data Check (m): This state transition occurs when the WTP and AC confirm the configuration. [...] AC: This state transition occurs when the AC receives the Change State Event Request message (see Section 8.6) from the WTP. The AC responds with a Change State Event Response message (see Section 8.7). The AC MUST start the DataCheckTimer timer and stops the ChangeStatePendingTimer timer (see Section 4.7). PatC -----Original Message----- From: Yong Zhang [mailto:yozhang@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 8:50 AM To: capwap@frascone.com Subject: [Capwap] AC state transition: Join to Image Data/Configure incapwap spec draft 10 With the changes for issue 102, the state transition still has problems. Here is the current text: Join to Image Data (f): AC: This state transition occurs when the AC receives the Image > Data Request message from the WTP, after having sent its Join > Response to the WTP. Join to Configure (g): AC: This state transition occurs immediately after the AC transmits the Join Response message to the WTP. Join will only go to Configure. Is the Configure Status message a MUST sent message by WTP? If it is, we can change the (g) to Join to Configure (g): AC: This state transition occurs when the AC receives the Configure Status message from the WTP, after having sent its Join Response to the WTP. _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap