Subject: [Capwap] Expanded discussion on regulatory certification

From: "Bob O'Hara (boohara)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 03:04:21 -0700

At the working group meeting, I asked the presenter for SLAPP about the
impact of downloading code into third party WTPs that have received
regulatory certification.  At that time, the presenter said that he was
not expert in that area, but suspected that recertification of the
device would be necessary with the newly downloaded code.  I would like
to discuss this further on the list.  

It is my assertion that all regulatory agencies that require
certification of WTPs for operation in their jurisdiction will require
that WTPs that receive code and use it for operation, when that code is
not from the entity that received the original certification for the
device, will require a new certification of that device with the new,
third party code.

In addition, nearly all regulatory agencies, certainly those in North
America, Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, require an external
indication of the certification, usually a sticker with an identifying
string.  I also assert that downloading new code to a third party WTP
will require that all WTPs that have received that code must now also be
physically accessed to have a new sticker affixed.

It is not sufficient for an AC vendor to simply develop code ports for
each silicon vendor and WTP reference design from those silicon vendors.
The AC vendors must now obtain regulatory certification for every WTP
manufactured.  Similarly, each WTP vendor must now obtain regulatory
certification with every AC vendor.

This will be a significant additional cost for all AC and WTP vendors.
Where current devices need to be certified once for each regulatory
domain, SLAPP will require that each device is certified several times
for each regulatory domain.  The cost of regulatory certification for an
AC vendor is now multiplied by the number of WTPs that is supports.
Similarly, the cost of certification for a WTP vendor is multiplied by
the number of ACs that are supported.  Even sharing the cost of
certification between AC and WTP vendor only cuts this cost in half.  It
is still dramatically larger than with any other proposal.

This is a very important issue.  With SLAPP, it is no longer sufficient
to state support for the ultimate CAPWAP protocol to be interoperable.
It is now necessary that there be a specific business relationships
between AC and WTP vendors or a list of "compatible" vendors and model
numbers.

I believe that this also significantly raises the barriers to entry for
AC and WTP vendors, since the cost of market entry is associated with
the costs of regulatory certification with a potentially large number of
ACs and WTPs.  As the number of ACs and WTPs increase, this cost also
increases.  The result is likely to be an entrenchment of the early
entrants into this market and the exclusion of new participants.

So, my final assertion is that adoption of the SLAPP model for CAPWAP
would have exactly the opposite effect that is desired from
standardization, which is lower costs, greater competition, and widely
interoperable products.

 -Bob

Bob O'Hara
Cisco Systems - WNBU

Phone:  +1 408 853 5513
Mobile: +1 408 218 4025
 
_______________________________________________
Capwap mailing list
[email-masked]
http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap

---

From: Dan Harkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 03:29:06 -0700

I was that presenter and I don't think that recertification is
necessary, but again, that's outside my job function.

  It may be your assertion that recertification is necessary but that's
just your assertion, it doesn't mean it's true. And furthermore whether
someone has to put a sticker on an AP has nothing to do with CAPWAP. 

  Dan.

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 03:04:21 PDT you wrote

---

From: "David T. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 03:52:05 -0700 (PDT)

HI,

So, following the logic of the below, when does a new code release
by the WTP vendor require a recertification and new sticker?

> standardization, which is lower costs, greater competition, and widely

Regards,
/david t. perkins