Subject: [Capwap] 答复: Kindly check the issue list in the www.capwap.org

From: young <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 17:54:26 +0800

Dear Dan:
    
  Thanks a lot. 

  I already updated the issues list in the www.capwap.org according to your
confirm.
  When I closed a issue, I gave the following change logs in the roundup.
  Dan confirmed it could be close according to changes in the Base MIB
version 04
  or 
  Dan confirmed it could be close according to changes in the Dot11 MIB
version 03

  The reply to open issues is as followed.
   1)  #41 - I think it can be closed but I did not check all references,
please make sure 
     [Richard] I would keep it open till WGLC is over
     
  2) #8,  #66, #48, # 47 #8 - in progress as per our mail thread. 
     Describing details and asking input on the list and at the meeting is
recommended
     [Richard]  I would ask input on the list and at the meeting
     
  3)  #28 - would add UNITS "retransmissions"
  
  4)  #36, #63 - good and clear language is not only wish but mandatory.
Some improvements
      exist also following the comments by different reviewers, I would
suggest that the 
      WG debates whether it is OK to release the documents as they are and
leave the rest 
      for the RFC Editor to fix - or would rather undergo another editing
phase before
       submission to the IESG
   [Richard] I suggest we had better undergo another editing phase before
submission to the IESG.
   I am looking helps from my foreign friend who live in the beijing. 
   
  5) #64 - this is not completely solved. If all text about interfaces was
moved to the base-mib, 
   then there should be a pointer here to the base-mib for this purpose, 
   Yet I cannot find either here or in the base-mib text that says that
ifIndex, ifDescr, ifName, 
   ifAlias is to be used as per RFC 2863. 
   [Richard] We would add it
      
  6) #59, #57 - I could not find information about the persistency of
objects in the DESCRIPTION clauses 
    of the tables despite the comment resolution 
   [Richard] For #57, current draft have the following text, whether it is
ok?
       DESCRIPTION
        "A table of objects that display and control WLANs.
         Values of all objects in this table are persistent at
         restart/reboot."
   For #59, yes, it should add text for persistency

   Regards
   Richard

-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
发送时间: 2009年3月20日 0:17
收件人: shiyang 00338
抄送: Yong Zhang; Mani, Mahalingam (Mani); [email-masked];
Margaret Wasserman; David B Harrington; Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
主题: RE: Kindly check the issue list in the www.capwap.org

Hi Richard,

Here is my basement about the current list of issues: 

#8 - in progress as per our mail thread. Describing details and asking input
on the list and at the meeting is recommended #44 - can be closed #41 - I
think it can be closed but I did not check all references, please make sure
#5 - can be closed #66 - this text is related to issue #8 - so I suggest to
keep it open until #8 is closed #65 - can be closed #64 - this is not
completely solved. If all text about interfaces was moved to the base-mib,
then there should be a pointer here to the base-mib for this purpose, Yet I
cannot find either here or in the base-mib text that says that ifIndex,
ifDescr, ifName, ifAlias is to be used as per RFC 2863. 
#62, #61, #60 - can be closed
#59, #57 - I could not find information about the persistency of objects in
the DESCRIPTION clauses of the tables despite the comment resolution 
#58, #56, #55, #54, #53, #52, #51, #50, $49 - can be closed #48, # 47 -
these are related to issue #8 - so I suggest to keep them open until #8 is
closed #43, #42, #40, #39, #38, #37, #36, #35, #34, #33, #32, #31, #30, #29
- can be closed #28 - UNITS "retransmissions" can be defined #27, #26, #25,
#24, #23, #22, #21, #20, #19, #18, #17, #16, #15, #14, #13, #12, #11, #10,
#9, #7, #6 - can be closed #36, #63 - good and clear language is not only
wish but mandatory. Some improvements exist also following the comments by
different reviewers, I would suggest that the WG debates whether it is OK to
release the documents as they are and leave the rest for the RFC Editor to
fix - or would rather undergo another editing phase before submission to the
IESG

Regards, 

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: shiyang 00338 [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 3:25 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: Yong Zhang; Mani, Mahalingam (Mani); Mani, Mahalingam (Mani)
> Subject: Kindly check the issue list in the www.capwap.org
> 
> Dear Dan:
> 
> Kindly check the issue list in the www.capwap.org and confirm
> which ones would be closed, then I and Yong could prepare 
> slide for meeting and give status of issues.
> BTW, we are doing self-review of drafts, especially reference 
> id, default value and value scope, to ensure they are 
> consistent with protocol RFCs. Before meeting, we would send 
> out the review result in the mailling list.
> 
> Regards
> Richard
> 
> 

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

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