Subject: [Capwap] Operator requirements [Was RE: DISCUSS and COMMENT: draft-ietf-capwap-objectives ]

From: "Saravanan Govindan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 09:41:52 +0800

All,

I agree that the current text does not accurately portray the IETF's
intentions. The intent was not to give low priority to operators'
concerns.

How about the following reorganized text?

Suggested change:

The objectives described in this document have been prioritized based on
their immediate significance in the development and evaluation of a
control and provisioning protocol for large-scale WLAN deployments.

The priorities are;

i.  Mandatory and Accepted Objectives
ii.  Desirable Objectives
iii.  Non-Objectives

The priorities have been assigned to individual objectives in accordance
with working group discussions.

Furthermore, a distinct category of objectives is provided based on
requirements gathered from network service operators.  These are
specific need that arise from operators' experiencese [Note: Should be
"experiences"] in deploying and managing large-scale WLANs.

a. Operator Requirements
---XXX---

Does this seem better?

Saravanan

> Comment:
> The introduction to section 5 implies that operator requirements are
> valued less than non-objectives.  I don't think that is the 
> message the IETF wants to send to the operator community.
> 
> >   The priorities are;
> 
> >   i.  Mandatory and Accepted Objectives
> >   ii.  Desirable Objectives
> >   iii.  Non-Objectives
> >   iv.  Operator Requirements
> 
> 
I guess the wording is somewhat unfortunate that one could indeed get
the impression
that Sam depicts. Maybe we can just leave out "the priorities are:".
Mmm... even then one could see them as low priority, even though the one
requirement
in that category is listed as MUST.
Maybe we need to change "prioritized" into "categorized" ? 

Editors/authors?

Bert

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

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