Subject: RE: [Capwap] WGLC timeline for Evaluation draft

From: "Richard Gwee" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 11:53:15 +0800

Hi,

I agree with the recommendation to incorporate the key recommendations
of the Comparative Analysis draft into the final Evaluation draft. It is
a pity that I am not able to present the recommendations during the 64th
IETF meeting but I feel that the recommendations highlighted in the
Comparative Analysis draft are valid points for discussion. I do
understand the Evaluation draft is the official working item but I do
believe that we can actually look into recommendations outside the
Evaluation draft if they are valid and help in the development of a
better CAPWAP protocol standard.

Thanks and regards
Richard

-----Original Message-----
From: Saravanan Govindan [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 11:20 AM
To: Nelson, David; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Capwap] WGLC timeline for Evaluation draft

Dave,

I think the Evaluation Team has made solid recommendations based on its
review. 

My concern is that as a WG document, which is an output from the CAPWAP
WG as a whole, the Evaluation draft should also incorporate key findings
made outside the Evaluation Team review. 

For consideration, these 'other' findings can be included in a separate
section that clearly highlights their origins. 

This way, the Evaluation document will cover greater analyses of the
protocols and help implementers understand the CAPWAP protocol better. 

I hope this helps to better understand my concern. 

Cheers,

Saravanan

-----Original Message-----
From: Nelson, David [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 11:42 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Capwap] WGLC timeline for Evaluation draft

Saravanan Govindan writes...

> To have discussions on the key recommendations of the 
> Comparative Analysis draft and then incorporate them in
> the final Evaluation draft based on consensus.

With all due respect, the Evaluation Team draft (and eventual
Informational RFC) documents the proceedings and findings of the CAPWAP
WG Evaluation Team, during a specific period of time when the Eval Team
was in operation.  The draft is intended to accurately reflect that
process, as an historical record.  The recommendations of the Eval Team
are not binding upon the WG.  However, the WG is not expected to
*revise* the record of the Eval Team proceedings, except to correct
errors of fact.

For that reason, adding substantive comments and recommendations, that
did not come from the Eval Team proceedings, into the Eval Team draft
would not be appropriate.

Regards,

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

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

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

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

Republic Polytechnic, Tanglin Campus, 1 Kay Siang Road, Singapore 248922
. www.rp.sg . Fax: +65 6415-1310 . 
>From March 2006, we will be located in our new home at 9 Woodlands Avenue 9, Singapore 738964. Republic Polytechnic, the first Institute of Higher Learning to fully adopt the Problem-Based Learning approach in Singapore, continues to strive towards best practices and maintain excellence in service standards with the following certifications: Singapore Innovation Class (SIC), Singapore Quality Class (SQC), People Developer Standards and QEHS (ISO 9001, 14001 and OHSAS 18001)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONFIDENTIALITY CAUTION: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and contains information that is privileged and confidential. If you, the reader of this message, are not the intended recipient, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return email and delete the original message. Thank you.  

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

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

---

From: "Nelson, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 23:16:59 -0500

Richard Gwee writes...

> of the Comparative Analysis draft into the final Evaluation draft.
 
I respectfully disagree, for the reasons I've explained.
 
> ...but I feel that the recommendations highlighted in the
> Comparative Analysis draft are valid points for discussion. 
 
Indeed, they are valid points for discussion.  They are simply not the output of the official CAPWAP WG Evaluation Team, and should be documented, and discussed separately.   The tradition of using an Evaluation Team, within the IETF, includes the issuance of a report of findings from that panel that stands alone as the historical record of the Evaluation Team's work, process and findings.
 
The Evaluation Team document is clearly *not*, nor does it portend to be, the WG's consensus position on protocol selection and evaluation.  It is the work product and recommendations of the Evaluation Team.
 
Regards,

Dave

---

From: Darren <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 09:48:24 -0700

The evaluation draft will stand as is for the purpose of documenting
the evaluation team's efforts.  The draft and informational RFC is the
historical record of the evaluation team's efforts at that point in
time.  It's primary goal was to help the working group consolidate
it's efforts around one protocol to deliver on the CAPWAP objectives. 
The draft is not intended to be an exclusive list of issues and
recommendations for the life of the working group.

I agree that Richard's comparative analysis draft brings up some
important points that are not in the official evaluation draft.  These
issues can be considered by the working group in without editing the
evaluation draft.  If there is sufficient support from the working
group to addresss those issues, they should be addressed.  This
includes consensus that they are important issues that must be
resolved and volunteers to develop the solutions.

-Darren