Subject: [Capwap] Issue 43 - update

From: "Saravanan Govindan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 18:05:25 +0800

All,

There have been a number of exchanges on CAPWAP's support for the
requirement on IEEE 802.11i Considerations.

I continue to believe that the protocol must address the case for
802.11i authenticator and crypto elements being on different entities.
The objective was designed based on market realities that the
Architecture Taxonomy highlighted. 

This is a technical issue for which, a technical proposal is being made.
However, opinions seem to focus on perception of protocol behaviour.

I suggest a closer look at the mandatory objective in relation to the
current CAPWAP specifications. 

Saravanan

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

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

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 06:28:14 -0400

Hi Saravan,

You would probably make more headway in this discussion if you could  
describe a use case where it is necessary (or considerably more  
desirable) to have the authenticator on the WTP.

Do you believe that it is necessary to allow the authenticator to run  
on the WTP in order to fully support IEEE 802.11i? If so, could you  
please let us know why?  Several people in the group seem to believe  
that IEEE 802.11i is fully supported by the current specification.

Is there something that will work properly when the authenticator is  
on the WTP that won't work properly when the authenticator is on the  
AC?  If we've missed some important use case here, please let us know  
what it is.

Are there cases where some significant performance increase is  
enabled by moving the authenticator (in addition to the encryption  
code)  to the WTP?  If so, please explain.

If you could tell us what the technical advantages are to allowing  
the authenticator to run on the WTP, we could weigh those advantages  
and see if they are worth the added complexity of supporting this  
option in the specification.

At the moment, the only argument you are giving for why we should  
support having the authenticator on the WTP is that we once thought  
we would need to do that in order to support IEEE 802.11.  However,  
several WG members now believe that we were mistaken in that detail,  
because they believe that the current spec does fully support IEEE  
802.11i without that option.  If you want to convince us otherwise,  
you will need to explain how the current specification fails to fully  
support IEEE 802.11i or offer another compelling technical reason for  
adding this option.

Thanks,
Margaret

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 07:31:13 -0400

Sorry, Saravan...  I got this backwards.  I realize that you are  
talking about the case where the authenticator is on the AC and the  
encryption is on the WTP.

Please mentally insert "AC" everywhere that I have used "WTP" below.

Margaret