Subject: [Capwap] Removing MIBs From Charter?

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 05:25:44 -0400

Hi All,

I am making this proposal as an individual, not on behalf of the  
other WG chairs...

<wgchair hat=off>

Another IETF draft deadline has passed, and we still don't have any  
CAPWAP MIB documents available for review.  I have seen no sign that  
there is sufficient interest in the CAPWAP WG to write, review or  
publish the MBs that are currently in our charter.  While I'd still  
like to be proven wrong, it doesn't seem likely that the CAPWAP WG  
will complete, or even begin, the MIB work that is currently in our  
charter any time in the near future.

So, I'd like to see us re-charter to remove the MB items.  This would  
involve removing the following two lines from the text of our charter:

"4. A MIB Document to support the CAPWAP protocol."

"* MIB support standard"

It would also involve removing all of the Goals and Milestones  
related to the MIBs.

I'd also like us to add the following text to the end of the charter  
text to explain this action:

"The CAPWAP charter originally contained a MIB document to support  
the CAPWAP protocol.  This item was removed, due to lack of progress  
on this deliverable.  The CAPWAP protocol supports automatic  
configuration of WTPs by ACs.  In general, it is expected that CAPWAP  
ACs will be manually configured.  Since there are relatively few ACs  
and they are centrally administered, there would be little advantage  
to manually configuring an NMS station, so that the NMS station could  
configure the ACs.  A MIB could be useful for monitoring the health  
and stability of a WLAN consisting of a CAPWAP AC and a set of WTPs,  
but there was insufficient interest in the CAPWAP WG to pursue this  
work in a timely manner."

What do others think?

Margaret

</wgchair>

_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap

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

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:21:15 +0200

I am not happy as AD and as contributor with leaving work unfinished.
Reality is yet reality. If the MIB work is being taken out of the
charter I believe that it would be a good idea to insert a note in the
protocol document which explains how the management (including
configuration) of the ACs is supposed to happen in the absence of a MIB
to be used with SNMP. Saying 'manual configuration' is not forbidden if
this is thought to be an acceptable operational practice. 

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 12:26 PM
> To: capwap
> Subject: [Capwap] Removing MIBs From Charter?
> 
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> I am making this proposal as an individual, not on behalf of 
> the other WG chairs...
> 
> <wgchair hat=off>
> 
> Another IETF draft deadline has passed, and we still don't 
> have any CAPWAP MIB documents available for review.  I have 
> seen no sign that there is sufficient interest in the CAPWAP 
> WG to write, review or publish the MBs that are currently in 
> our charter.  While I'd still like to be proven wrong, it 
> doesn't seem likely that the CAPWAP WG will complete, or even 
> begin, the MIB work that is currently in our charter any time 
> in the near future.
> 
> So, I'd like to see us re-charter to remove the MB items.  
> This would involve removing the following two lines from the 
> text of our charter:
> 
> It would also involve removing all of the Goals and 
> Milestones related to the MIBs.
> 
> I'd also like us to add the following text to the end of the 
> charter text to explain this action:
> 
> "The CAPWAP charter originally contained a MIB document to 
> support the CAPWAP protocol.  This item was removed, due to 
> lack of progress on this deliverable.  The CAPWAP protocol 
> supports automatic configuration of WTPs by ACs.  In general, 
> it is expected that CAPWAP ACs will be manually configured.  
> Since there are relatively few ACs and they are centrally 
> administered, there would be little advantage to manually 
> configuring an NMS station, so that the NMS station could 
> configure the ACs.  A MIB could be useful for monitoring the 
> health and stability of a WLAN consisting of a CAPWAP AC and 
> a set of WTPs, but there was insufficient interest in the 
> CAPWAP WG to pursue this work in a timely manner."
> 
> What do others think?
> 
> Margaret
> 
> </wgchair>
> 
> 
> 
>

---

From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 09:12:18 -0700

I have no issues with removing the MIB from the charter.

PatC 

-----Original Message-----
From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 2:26 AM
To: capwap
Subject: [Capwap] Removing MIBs From Charter?

Hi All,

I am making this proposal as an individual, not on behalf of the other
WG chairs...

<wgchair hat=off>

Another IETF draft deadline has passed, and we still don't have any
CAPWAP MIB documents available for review.  I have seen no sign that
there is sufficient interest in the CAPWAP WG to write, review or
publish the MBs that are currently in our charter.  While I'd still like
to be proven wrong, it doesn't seem likely that the CAPWAP WG will
complete, or even begin, the MIB work that is currently in our charter
any time in the near future.

"* MIB support standard"

It would also involve removing all of the Goals and Milestones related
to the MIBs.

"The CAPWAP charter originally contained a MIB document to support the
CAPWAP protocol.  This item was removed, due to lack of progress on this
deliverable.  The CAPWAP protocol supports automatic configuration of
WTPs by ACs.  In general, it is expected that CAPWAP ACs will be
manually configured.  Since there are relatively few ACs and they are
centrally administered, there would be little advantage to manually
configuring an NMS station, so that the NMS station could configure the
ACs.  A MIB could be useful for monitoring the health and stability of a
WLAN consisting of a CAPWAP AC and a set of WTPs, but there was
insufficient interest in the CAPWAP WG to pursue this work in a timely
manner."

What do others think?

Margaret

</wgchair>