Subject: [Capwap] status of CAPWAP

From: "Dan Harkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 13:27:02 -0800 (PST)

Hi,

  Last week Mani wrote:

     By the way, following this, at the request of at least one of the
     authors, the three CAPWAP protocol drafts (the RFCs-to-be: 5415,
     -5416 and -5417) in the RFC-Ed queue have been requested to be
     placed on hold until this matter is resolved by way of an early
     work-around from IETF, under discussion in the IETF list.

I am concerned about this. If any protocol needs to be able to evolve,
and create derivative works, it is CAPWAP. Wireless networking is a
rapidly changing field and having a "standard" that cannot change with
it makes that "standard" pointless.

  I politely and respectfully ask the chairs to gauge WG consensus on
the matter of what we want to do with our drafts with respect to RFC 5378
and then to instruct the editor(s) to follow that consensus. If the
editor(s) refuse(s) then I would expect he/she/they to be replaced with
someone who is willing to implement the will of the WG.

  These drafts are not any one person's or any one company's property
and the hangups of any person or company shouldn't trump the will of
the WG.

  regards,

  Dan.

_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap

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

---

From: "Dave Nelson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 16:37:48 -0500

Dan Harkins writes...

>  I politely and respectfully ask the chairs to gauge WG consensus
> on the matter of what we want to do with our drafts with respect 
> to RFC 5378 and then to instruct the editor(s) to follow that 
> consensus.

I'm not sure it's as simple as a matter of consensus.  The easy way out is
to attach the forthcoming "workaround" text to every I-D that isn't written
from scratch.  The problem, as you may well know, is that if you omit the
"workaround" text, RFC 5378 requires the authors to jointly and severally
assert things that they may not actually know, specifically, to make
assertions about the granting of copyright licenses by a list of persons
that may be hard to ascertain.

While this is still playing out, I'm leaning toward recommending that folks
just add the "workaround" text whenever there is any doubt.

---

From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 23:00:30 -0800

Correct Dan, but publication will have many unintended consequences.
>From what I am being told, this is actively being addressed now, so I
would prefer we hold off a little longer. CAPWAP is not the only
document that is being held up. We already have the RFC numbers if
anyone needs to reference them (e.g., EPCGlobal), and the latest drafts
can be used for anyone actively developing.

Personally, if we believe these need to be published today, then I would
instead ask that we force the RFC Editor to adopt the old rules - which
applied when the spec was written.

PatC

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Harkins [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 1:27 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Capwap] status of CAPWAP

  Hi,

  Last week Mani wrote:

the matter of what we want to do with our drafts with respect to RFC
5378

  regards,

  Dan.

---

From: "Dan Harkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 10:56:24 -0800 (PST)

Hi Pat,

  Can you expand on _exactly_ what those consequences would be?

  CAPWAP may not be the only document being held up but it may have
the most to lose if the "work around" limits derivative work. Hence
my concern.

  Dan.

---

From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 09:12:47 -0800

Hi Dan,

I'd prefer not to be the one to provide legal advice to folks on this
list. What I would, however, recommend is that you contact the IETF IP
counsel, Jorge Contreras at Wilmer Hale, who can provide you with this
information. You can find info on Jorge at
http://www.wilmerhale.com/jorge_contreras/.

PatC

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Harkins [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 10:56 AM
To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Capwap] status of CAPWAP

  Hi Pat,

  Dan.

---

From: "Dan Harkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 09:32:11 -0800 (PST)

Hi Pat,

  I'm not looking for legal advice, from you or Jorge Contreras.
I'm just asking you to elaborate on your statement.

  I know it was you who requested a hold-up in publication. I'd
just like to know what about RFC 5378 concerns you with respect to
these documents and what the "workaround" you are seeking looks like.

  Like you agreed, these are the WG's documents. So you should tell
the WG what it is you want done to them.

  Dan.

---

From: "David Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 14:24:48 -0500

Hi,

The discussion of rfc5378 implications is being held on the ietf
mailing list. As already described here, rfc5378 requires authors to
make assertions that they may not be in a good position to make, and
they could be held legally liable for the assertion. Many authors are
withholding their approvals until IETF legal counsel and the IETF
Trust resolve the issue.

To get a better understanding of the issues, please look to the ietf
mailing list.

dbh

> Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 12:32 PM
> >> Personally, if we believe these need to be published today, then
I
> > would
> >> editor(s) refuse(s) then I would expect he/she/they to be
replaced
> > with