Subject: [Capwap] Recap of eval recommendations

From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 08:10:02 -0800

All,

As I'm preparing for the next version of the lwapp specification, I'd
like to get some closure on the evaluation team's recommendations. Here
is a recap from previous e-mail threads.

Section 9.1.1
   Summary: Change message element's type field from an 8 bit to 16 bit
field
   WG Update: no opposition to the change
   Pat's Recommendation: Make the change
 
Section 9.1.2
   Summary: Change LWAPP control security to DTLS
   WG Update: much debate on this topic, but Scott Kelly and Eric
Escorla are working on a draft
   Pat's Recommendation: WG debates the contents of the draft and then
makes a decision

Section 9.1.3.1:
   Summary: Introduce tunneling in Local MAC mode, meaning the following
modes would exist in LWAPP:
            1. Split-MAC: Tunnel native MAC frames in UDP (e.g., 802.11)
            2. Local-MAC w/ Local Bridge: Do not tunnel 802.3 frames
            3. Local-MAC w/ Tunnel: Tunnel 802.3 frames in UDP
   WG Update: Rough consensus on adding this mode of operation
   Pat's Recommendation: I'm still not crazy on this change as I see
this as adding complexity to the
                         protocol because we are simply adding yet
another mode of tunneling, where split
                         MAC already handles data tunneling. However, in
the spirit of compromise, I will
                         add text to support this mode of operation as
it does appear to reflect rough
                         consensus.
Section 9.1.3.2:
   Summary: Pick one mode of operation and make it the default value
   WG Update: Little discussion on this topic so far, but some agreement
on mode 2 (above)
   Pat's Recommendation: Postpone this change until after the
publication of the first draft.

Section 9.2.1: 
   Summary: Move Add Mobile outside of 802.11 binding section
   WG Update: No discussion
   Pat's Recommendation: This is a reasonable request since the Delete
Mobile is outside of the binding
                         section. I think we should accept this request
and would propose having this in
                         the first draft.

Section 9.2.2:
   Summary: Remove layer 2 mode
   WG Update: Limited discussion (2 people so far)
   Pat's Recommendation: Push this change until after the publication of
the first draft. If there is rough
                         consensus, either remove it entirely, or create
a separate document that only 
                         defines the layer two encapsulation mode (my
preference)

Section 9.2.3: 
   Summary: Either use L2TP or GRE for encapsulation
   WG Update: Although I raised the issue, no discussion on this topic
on the list
   Pat's Recommendation: While I understand the overall recommendation,
I believe that there are 
                         misunderstandings of what this really means
(see 
 
http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap/msg01864.html). My
recommendation is 
                         that do not implement this change.

Pat Calhoun
CTO, Wireless Networking Business Unit
Cisco Systems
_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap

Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 10:46:40 -0800

Pat-

Don't forget that according to the recoommdations and WG agreement the
new Working group draft based on LWAPP will be named CAPWAP. 

Thanks,
Dorothy

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 8:10 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Capwap] Recap of eval recommendations

All,

Section 9.1.1
 
Section 9.1.2

Section 9.1.3.1:

Section 9.2.1: 

Section 9.2.2:

Section 9.2.3: 

Pat Calhoun