Subject: RE: [Capwap] Interoperability reqs into Objectives draft (was: Comments on objectives draft)

From: "Nelson, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 15:16:26 -0400

Dan Harkins writes...

>   That's the one that takes 18 months to get a fielded and 
> interoperable solution to a problem. I can write code alot 
> faster than a debating society can come to closure on an issue.

I think we all can.  How does that "quick code" process guarantee *any*
level of multi-vendor interoperability?

> What's that quote of yours? "it missed
> the market window because the WG spent too long arguing." 

I think in that case we're talking about 5 years as opposed to 18
months.  :-(

_______________________________________________
Capwap mailing list
[email-masked]
http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 14:00:07 -0700

Dave,

>I think in that case we're talking about 5 years as opposed to 18

Hmm, well, we finished SEND in 18 months. But, in that case, the protocol
design was even written into the charter, though we did not end up using
that design ultimately because it couldn't be implemented. There was no
disagreement or even discussion about the architecture, that's been fixed
since RFC 2461.

The difference with CAPWAP is that there is a basic disagreement about the
architecture, and entrenched commercial interests on both sides. Much harder
to achieve agreement in a short period. Too bad 802.11 didn't see fit to
nail down the architecture more tightly initially, it would have made the
RAN protocol standardization process much easier.

            jak