Subject: [Capwap] Proposed Criteria for CAPWAP WBID Reviewing

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 21:09:37 -0400

Hi All,

I think we have had a good discussion of the criteria that could/ 
should be used for expert review of CAPWAP WBID allocations, and I  
would now like to make a specific proposal (see below).  I believe  
that the criteria I've documented below are consistent with the IANA  
Considerations section of the base CAPWAP RFC, with existing practice  
for other IANA assignments that use expert review, and with the  
previous actions taken by the CAPWAP WG.  I would like to receive  
comments on this proposal, positive or negative, within the next  
week.  It is my hope that I can begin using these criteria to request  
addiitonal information from ChinaBWIPS, and to consider their request  
for a WAPI WBID by Thursday, May 7th.

I would also propose that the CAPWAP WG take on a new work item before  
we close, which would be a quick document to do two things:

(1) Officially reserve CAPWAP WBIDs 31 and 32 for IETF standards  
action only.  This is intended to allow for later extension of the  
WBID space.
(2) Assign WBID 30 as an experimental value.  Anyone who is working  
with a CAPWAP binding before a WBID is officially assigned should use  
this value for experimental purposes.

Thoughts?

Margaret

Proposed CAPWAP WBID Allocation Review Criteria
=========================================

Requests for a CAPWAP WBID allocation should including the following  
documentation:

(1) A document defining the proposed CAPWAP binding that would use the  
requested WBID.
(2) A copy (or a detailed summary) of the wireless protocol that is to  
be controlled and/or provisioned using the proposed CAPWAP binding.
(2) Any additional documents that are needed to understand the  
proposed CAPWAP binding,
(3) A summary of the standardization status of the proposed CAPWAP  
binding.

This material may be made publicly available, or it may be provided  
confidentially to IANA and the designated expert for CAPWAP WBID  
allocations (currently Margaret Wasserman).  The requester should make  
it clear if any of the provided information should be kept confidential.

The designated expert will use the following criteria to determine if  
a WBID should be allocated:

(1) The proposed CAPWAP binding should be on-track towards publication  
as a standard within a recognized international, industrial or  
regional standards body.  The wireless binding document should, at  
minimum, be at a level of acceptance that indicates that it is an  
active work item of a recognized standards body (similar to an IETF WG  
draft), not just a submitted proposal.
(2) The quality of the proposed CAPWAP binding should be sufficient to  
allow interoperable implementation.
(3) The proposed CAPWAP binding should be logically separate from  
existing CAPWAP bindings:  It does not overlap with existing bindings,  
and it would not be better defined as an extension to an existing  
binding.
(4) The proposed CAPWAP binding must not make any modification to the  
CAPWAP base specification or to any previously defined CAPWAP bindings.

The requester should provide, or the designated expert may request,  
any additional information needed to demonstrate that the above listed  
criteria have been met.

_________________________________________________________________
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: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 21:20:52 -0400

> action only.  This is intended to allow for later extension of the

I meant to say that we should reserve 0 and 31...

Margaret