Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP evaluation draft complete

From: "Darren Loher" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 09:10:21 -0700

The evaluation team focused on the WG objectives for evaluating the
proposals.  We elected to choose the base protocol which most fully
implemented the objectives.  We chose a base protocol as a compromise to
help speed the delivery of a standard.  The evaluation team believes
that LWAPP meets the objectives as defined better than any of the other
protocols.  That is the basis for choosing LWAPP as a base protocol.

Hopefully the WG can first consider if LWAPP is a suitable base
protocol.  Obviously choosing a base protocol has a lot to do with
whatever changes we as a group think we're going to need to make to this
base.  But if we can choose a base protocol, we will make a huge leap
forward in getting a real, working CAPWAP protocol defined.  The team
thought this is the best approach for us to make progress as a working
group.

We did consider an approach of a new proposal with the best features of
all the good and interesting capabilities presented.  However, as a team
we agreed this would be akin to "starting over" and would likely extend
the standards process by another year, if not longer.  I am not in favor
of this, but it is up to working group consensus to decide if a delay
like that is desirable.  

The additional recommendations are issues that the evaluation team would
like the working group to consider.  We did not believe they are
required to meet the official WG objectives.  However we strongly
believed that LWAPP would be a much better protocol if the "high
priority" recommendations were implemented in some way within LWAPP.
It's up to the working group at large to decide if these recommendations
are important enough to implement.  

-Darren

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Troy Dixler
> Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 6:30 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP evaluation draft complete
> 
> I guess I'm not following the logic behind the recommendation.  It
seems
> to
> me that rather than the group focusing in on what draft, they should
be
> focusing in on what attributes they want in the CAPWAP protocol.
There
> are
> clearly pieces of both base protocols that bring value to the working
> group.
> In the end the best pieces will become the basis we work from to
become a
> standard.
> 
> To pick a "side" when clearly there were attributes that were not
within
> LWAPP just stirs up politics.
> 
> Why not revise the draft to state the clear attributes and
recommendations
> that the protocol should contain and not start with either base draft
but
> start it fresh and call it by its rightful name CAPWAP.
> 
> -Troy
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On
> > Behalf Of Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> > Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 4:01 PM
> > To: T. Charles Clancy; [email-masked]
> > Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP evaluation draft complete
> >
> > Inline
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]On
> > > Behalf Of T. Charles Clancy
> > > Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 16:14
> > > To: [email-masked]
> > > Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP evaluation draft complete
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, 26 Sep 2005, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> > >
> > > > The evaluation team made a "decision" if you like for
> > > itself, but they
> > > > reported that decision as a RECOMMENDATION to the WG.
> > >
> > > Well if we don't take it as more than a RECOMMENDATION, I
> > > wonder what the point of an evaluation team was.
> > >
> >
> > I believe the value was en is that we had a dedicated team of people
> > who have meticoulously studied the objectives and the submission and
> > who have after that documented their findings precisely and at
> > then end even gave a recommendation.
> >
> > That is a very useful piece of input for the WG based on which they
> > can try to come to a decision as what to do. This in addition to any
> > other input (like your own evaluation etc).
> >
> > Bert
> > _______________________________________________
> > Capwap mailing list
> > [email-masked]
> > http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Capwap mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap
_______________________________________________
Capwap mailing list
[email-masked]
http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap

---

From: "Troy Dixler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 21:38:59 -0500

> of this, but it is up to working group consensus to decide if a delay

I understand your theory that starting with one of the drafts would have you
believe it would speed up the process, but I do not agree or see how you can
arrive at a conclusion that it would take "another year".  

With the impending IPR claims as well as the fact that both protocols
exhibit attributes that would benefit the working group I think we can turn
it around rather quickly.  The two drafts are simply not that complex.

I believe there have been a few voices that have responded to this thread
stating that they would like to revisit the draft and define the attributes
rather than one or the other for a base draft.  I would equally be willing
to work on the revised recommendation draft to define the core set of
attributes that make up the CAPWAP standard.  I believe others on the list
would equally be willing to assist.

-Troy

---

From: Dan Harkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 14:51:51 -0700

Darren,

  I understand the motivation in starting with a base draft but the
thing is you're recommending to change the base of this base draft
and that doesn't seem to be in line with the motivation in the
first place.

  I question whether it really is a huge leap forward to proceed in this
manner. Once again I would like to point out that the messaging of
LWAPP-- which it looks like the evaluation team preferred-- could be a
control type in SLAPP-- whose base it looks like the evaluation team
preferred. If that was what that the WG started with I feel it would
actually be faster to reach the resolution recommended by the evaluation
team. This is because it's more complicated to change the tunneling and
security of one of the protocols than it is to add/remove/modify TLVs. 

  Dan.

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 09:10:21 PDT you wrote