Subject: [Capwap] Comments on objectives draft

From: Inderpreet Singh <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 16:36:21 -0500

I have had trouble with getting email through to the capwap list for a
while.  I just had a couple of comments.

----
Cheng Hong wrote earlier: 
>>If that is still too much, we can modify the charter to clearly state 
>>which types of architecture should be in scope of CAPWAP (and forget 
>>about all the other permutations).

I think the charter is quite clear on what the objective should be.

"The revised CAPWAP WG will reference two classes of the Centralized
WLAN Architecture family, namely the Local MAC and the Split MAC, as
described in the CAPWAP Architecture Taxonomy draft."

Emek Sadot wrote earlier:

>>The other side of the coin is the question how many permutations would  
>>the protocol allows within each group - Split and Local. E.g. does  
>>the protocol allows the existent of several distinct Split WTPs each 
>>with  different (APF) set of components?

Once again, the charter is clear and does not mention multiple
permutations within each architecture family.  Local MAC is Local MAC.
 Split MAC is Split MAC.  I don't know of any variations in
implementations of Local MAC.  If there are variations within Split
MAC I suggest that defining the final form of Split MAC be out of
scope for CAPWAP.

Nevertheless, IMHO any CAPWAP protocol that is developed must include
a  capabilities exchange that just goes as far as defining Local MAC
or Split MAC for the data path - not permutations within.

Thanks

Inderpreet
_______________________________________________
Capwap mailing list
[email-masked]
http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap