Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Agenda

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2013 17:01:57 -0800

On 3/10/2013 4:53 PM, [email-masked] wrote:
> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-zhang-opsawg-capwap-eap-00.txt

Can someone explain the relationships among this,
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-shao-opsawg-capwap-hybridmac-00.txt,
and https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-opsawg-capwap-extension?
Is there a plan for the capwap extension work?

Melinda

---

From: Hui Deng <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2013 21:13:18 -0400

Hi Melinda,

According to the minutes of last IETF 85 meeting,
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/minutes/minutes-85-opsawg

   Background on CAPWAP and description of interoperability
   problems between access points and access controllers
   from different vendors, proposes EAP encapsulation in
   CAPWAP control plane.  Asked that CAPWAP work be
   restarted in opsawg, specifically: 1) EAP encapsulation,
   2) air interface management extension, and 3) BCP on
   local/split MAC (the latter may be an individual
   contribution).  Discussion of whether or not this may be
   an IEEE liaison issue.  Conclusion was that it's not,
   since CAPWAP is an IETF product and doesn't need a
   liaison from IEEE.  Benoit encouraged a new draft with
   two distinct problems.  We'd need to recharter to work on
   those, either restarting capwap or adding it to the
   opsawg charter

so two distinct problems have been submited to
1) EAP encapsulation,
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-zhang-opsawg-capwap-eap-00.txt
2) air interface management extension
 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-opsawg-capwap-extension?
and 3) BCP on local/split MAC
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-shao-opsawg-capwap-hybridmac-00.txt,
thanks a lot for your review.
Best regards

-Hui

2013/3/10 Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>

> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
>

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2013 18:03:22 -0800

> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/minutes/minutes-85-opsawg

Yes, but why are these being submitted separately,
discussed separately, and requesting agenda time
separately?

Melinda

---

From: Hui Deng <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2013 23:37:11 -0400

This three are targeting different topics, this would be more clear for the
readers.

As you said, we can combine all three together for presentation, thanks a
lot for your suggestion.

-Hui