Subject: [Capwap] Closing thread - 'Expanded Discussion on regulatory certification'

From: "Mani, Mahalingam (Mahalingam)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 11:12:00 -0600

With this - the chairs are calling for a closure to the thread on
'Expanded Discussion on regulatory certification'.

To generally summarize over this protracted thread: As expressed by
regulatory experts of varying degree (as well as all parties debating) -
there are bound to be regulatory concerns whenever software results in
changes to the RF-behavior of (commercial) devices that are subject to
regulatory (FCC and other international/regional bodies') approval. The
regulatory approvals may have some leeway to varying degrees per their
regional and own legislation as to how soon incremental firmware
revisions may need to recertify.

[Likewise are - perhaps lesser and clearer - concerns related to other
regulatory (or para-regulatory) approvals such as FIPS-140; which is the
case with a vendor's own software revisions - that they will need
incremental recertification at the minimum.]

The discussion originated during the IETF63 session observations on
concerns related to how a vendor can commit to regulatory compliance
anymore when the device is subjected to control of software by another
un-endorsed entity than the original vendor.

The conclusion is that they cannot.

The intended purpose was to discuss the impact on above behavior to a
CAPWAP protocol. We are not seeing that established beyond the expressed
concerns.

The later half of the thread in general has been objective (barring
explicit mention of vendors which we would like to avoid in this WG
wherever possible; please keep example vendors anonymous - though it is
too late for this thread) - but still not going anywhere either in
allaying concerns or being more specific about the impact than it has
been since the beginning.

The chairs of this WG believe that this list does not need more exposure
to drill-down details on RF-approval in WG's direct objectives of
developing CAPWAP protocol than discussed.  If anyone believes they have
NEW succinct information or data that is relevant, we prefer that they
check with the WG chairs before posting, so we can try to help ensure
that we do not keep repeating/rehashing the same facts.

Thanks,
-Chairs
======

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