Subject: [Capwap] IEEE Review 15 - Vendor flexibility

From: "Saravanan Govindan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 18:41:23 +0800

Section 5.1.14 - Vendor Flexibility (Requirement)

Comment:

Requirement should reflect CAPWAP protocol instead of WTP vendor	

Existing text:

WTP vendors must not be bound to a specific MAC.	

Proposed change:

"The CAPWAP protocol MUST be compatible with both local-MAC and
split-MAC WTPs."
_______________________________________________
Capwap mailing list
[email-masked]
http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap

---

From: "Bob O'Hara" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 07:58:17 -0700

I think that the IEEE review group did not understand this requirement in
its original form, if this is the change that they have requested.  I told
them as much in the 802.11 meeting in Cairns.  

This requirement has nothing to do with local MAC/split MAC distinctions and
everything to do with the fact that the proposed protocols MUST be entirely
hardware independent, i.e., MUST NOT depend on the presence of a particular
MAC chipset in order to provide the features and functions defined by the
other Requirements.

The correct text for this requirement should be"

"The CAPWAP protocol MUST be independent of any hardware implementation of
the AC and WTP, while simultaneously meeting the remaining requirements." 

 -Bob
 
-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Saravanan Govindan
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 3:41 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Capwap] IEEE Review 15 - Vendor flexibility

Comment:

Existing text:

Proposed change:

---

From: Dan Harkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2005 08:25:20 -0700

Bob,

  I think you mean "the correct text for this requirement MAY be" :-)

  I actually like Saravanan's suggestion better. The WG spent lots of
time coming up with a taxonomy to describe the various split MAC and
local MAC architectures. It makes sense to have a requirement that
explicitly states that the resulting CAPWAP protocol MUST NOT force a
specific architecture on implementors. Saravanan's suggestion says just
that (although in a positive-- MUST, not a negative-- MUST NOT-- way).

  Dan.

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 07:58:17 PDT you wrote

---

From: "Bob O'Hara" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 08:58:45 -0700

Dan,

I agree that the requirement to support both the local MAC and split MAC
architectures you propose should be part of the CAPWAP requirements.  I just
believe that changing this requirement, as the IEEE reviewers propose,
removes a significant requirement.  I have no objection to adding a new
requirement for architecture impartiality.

 -Bob
 
-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Dan Harkins
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 8:25 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: 'Saravanan Govindan'; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Capwap] IEEE Review 15 - Vendor flexibility 

  Bob,

  Dan.