Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP and RFID

From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 07:24:47 -0700

> (1) Trickle firmware download with separate reboot.  In other 
> words, we need to be able to download the firmware while our 
> CAPWAP connection remains in the running state, and later be 
> able to trigger a reboot, which will result in a switch to 
> the new firmware.  It seems very likely that some 802.11 
> systems will require this feature, as well.  In fact, it is 
> my understanding that some systems already do it this way.  
> But, the current state diagram and CAPWAP text don't seem to 
> support this -- you leave the running state to move to the 
> firmware download state and can only exit the firmware 
> download state through the reboot state.

I assume that the protocol evaluators, who requested that firmware
can be upgraded while in the run state meant for service to still be
provided. Anyone from the WG disagree?

> 
> (2) Clean separation between CAPWAP "base" protocol and 
> 802.11- specific control messages.  Ideally, we'd like to see 
> the CAPWAP base protocol and the 802.11-specific controls in 
> separate documents, but it would also be possible for us to 
> reference a portion of a monolithic document, as long as the 
> base protocol is cleanly-enough separated from the 
> 802.11-specific portions to allow us to unambiguously and 
> normatively reference the base protocol.

Agree that if we want to take this protocol outside of 802.11, then
an actual spec that can be normatively referenced, without all of the
802.11 extensions, is required.
_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap

Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 07:34:42 -0700

I don't see an issue with this, but after the F2F, its clear we have
higher priorities at hand, since the spec is not in a working state for
implementors.    I suggest we focus on those issues first, add this to
the Issues Database and prioritze with the remaining open issues once we
agree on a final process.

BR-
Dorothy

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 7:25 AM
To: Margaret Wasserman; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP and RFID

> (1) Trickle firmware download with separate reboot.  In other words, 
> we need to be able to download the firmware while our CAPWAP 
> connection remains in the running state, and later be able to trigger 
> a reboot, which will result in a switch to the new firmware.  It seems

> very likely that some 802.11 systems will require this feature, as 
> well.  In fact, it is my understanding that some systems already do it

> this way.
> But, the current state diagram and CAPWAP text don't seem to support 
> this -- you leave the running state to move to the firmware download 
> state and can only exit the firmware download state through the reboot

> state.

I assume that the protocol evaluators, who requested that firmware can
be upgraded while in the run state meant for service to still be
provided. Anyone from the WG disagree?

> 802.11- specific control messages.  Ideally, we'd like to see the 
> CAPWAP base protocol and the 802.11-specific controls in separate 
> documents, but it would also be possible for us to reference a portion

> of a monolithic document, as long as the base protocol is 
> cleanly-enough separated from the 802.11-specific portions to allow us

> to unambiguously and normatively reference the base protocol.

Agree that if we want to take this protocol outside of 802.11, then an
actual spec that can be normatively referenced, without all of the
802.11 extensions, is required.
_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 10:57:42 -0400

Hi Dorothy,

> agree on a final process.

That's fine with me.  It wasn't my intention to derail any current  
activities, just to get these issues on the table.

Thanks,
Margaret

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 07:57:58 -0700

> 802.11 extensions, is required.

I'd also support separating out the 802.11 extensions. It's too late for 
Wimax to use CAPWAP, but there will be other radio protocols in the future 
that might find it useful.

            jak