Subject: [OPSAWG] Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-capwap-extension-02

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 16:47:55 -0500

Numerous grammatical and stylistic suggestions that I gave you in my 
first review haven't made it into the revision, so I won't bother with 
any more. However, there are still points where the intention isn't 
clear and the text needs to be tightened up.

Section 4.1.2 regarding antenna configuration:
----------------------------------------------
I don't understand the explanation of this field. It says each bit 
represents the number of antennas corresponding to that bit. Taking that 
literally, I could see 1+2+...+8 = a total of 36 antennas being 
configured. Is this what you mean, or do you mean that there are eight 
antennas, each bit corresponds to one of them, and the bits determine 
which of those eight antennas are enabled?

Section 5.1 first paragraph:
----------------------------

Currently says: "... if those information element is zero ..."
Do you mean that literally (I haven't looked those information elements 
up), or do you mean: "... if those information elements are not present 
..."?

Section 5.3 explanation of scanning procedure:
----------------------------------------------

Do the three parameters that determine scan operation apply to both 
passive and active scanning, or just to active scanning? I can get the 
answer by looking in Section 5.3.1, but it wouldn't hurt to say it here.

Section 5.3.1 Scan Parameter message element:
---------------------------------------------

The M and S bits are described as having values 1 or 2, but are only one 
bit wide. They should be 0 or 1. You probably mean to designate that M 
bit is "WTP oper mode", not "AP oper mode".

You may want to specify what L=0 and D=0 mean.

5.3.4. Neighbor WTP Report:
---------------------------

You should probably use phrasing similar to that of Section 4.1.1 to 
specify transport of the Neighbor Report Element in the 802.11 
Information Element, rather than talking about a new message type.

---

From: Liu Dapeng <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 18:58:13 +0800

Hi Tom,

Thanks for your review.

2014-02-28 5:47 GMT+08:00 Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>:

> Numerous grammatical and stylistic suggestions that I gave you in my first
> review haven't made it into the revision, so I won't bother with any more.

I searched the mailing list and can not find your "grammatical and
stylistic suggestions" comments. Do you mind to give me a pointer?

> However, there are still points where the intention isn't clear and the
> text needs to be tightened up.
>
> literally, I could see 1+2+...+8 = a total of 36 antennas being configured.
> Is this what you mean, or do you mean that there are eight antennas, each
> bit corresponds to one of them, and the bits determine which of those eight
> antennas are enabled?
>

It is the latter case, only eight antennas.

How about adding the following sentence for clarification:

"Only one bit is allowed to be set to 1."

> Section 5.1 first paragraph:

It should be the channel field of those information element. How about the
following sentence?

 "If the channel field of those information element is set to 0"

> Section 5.3 explanation of scanning procedure:

OK, how about adding a sentence after the first sentence in page 9:

There are three parameters that will determine the working mode of
scan: PrimeChlSrvTime, On Channel ScanTime, Off Channel ScanTime.  It
applies to both active and passive scan.

Section 5.3.1 Scan Parameter message element:
> bit wide. They should be 0 or 1.

Yes. I will change its values to 0 and 1.

> You probably mean to designate that M bit is "WTP oper mode", not "AP oper
> mode".
>
>
Yes, I will change the "AP" to "WTP".

> You may want to specify what L=0 and D=0 mean.

I will add the following:

L=0: Disable Load Balance Scan.
D=0: Disable Rouge WTP detection scan.

> specify transport of the Neighbor Report Element in the 802.11 Information
> Element, rather than talking about a new message type.
>

OK. How about changing it to the following:

This document specifies use of the IEEE 802.11 Information Element (Type
1029) that defined in section 6.6 of RFC5416 and IEEE 802.11 Neighbor
Report Element that defined in section 8.4.2.39 of IEEE-802.11.2012 to
carry the neighbor WTP report message.

Cheers,
Dapeng Liu

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

-- 

------
Best Regards,
Dapeng Liu

---

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 09:55:54 -0500

> stylistic suggestions" comments. Do you mind to give me a pointer?
[PTT] Sorry, I sent it to you privately as a marked-up .docx on 7 Nov 
2013. It's only 19 kB, so I suppose I could send it to the list too, or 
just resend it. Alternatively I could work directly on something you 
send me. Let me know.

> "Only one bit is allowed to be set to 1."

[PTT] If that is so, why do you need 8 bits and not just 3 (if you 
number the antennas starting from 0)? Are you sure this isn't a matter 
of configuring a specific set of antennas, so that multiple bits can be 
set? For example, 10010000 enables antennas 8 and 5 and disables the rest?
> applies to both active and passive scan.
[PTT] I believe the definitions of the On and Off Channel Scan Time 
parameters say that they apply to active mode only.
> carry the neighbor WTP report message.
[PTT] The point is that there is no such thing as the neighbour WTP 
report message. The sentence should be:

"This document specifies use of the IEEE 802.11 Information Element 
(Type 1029) defined in section 6.6 of RFC5416 to carry the IEEE 802.11 
Neighbor Report Element defined in section 8.4.2.39 of 
[IEEE-802.11.2012], possibly along with other IEEE 802.11 elements."