Capwap Mailing List: Re: Issue 244: Preamble Header Optimization moved from WishList to Active Issues Database

[Abhijit Choudhury (achoudhu) (achoudhu]

Title: Issue 244: Preamble Header Optimization moved from Wish List to Active Issues Database

Hi Dorothy,

 

I oppose this change because of its timing. I would support

option 3 - to move it to the wish list.

 

At this late stage, the only changes we should be considering

are bug fixes, omissions and issues where more clarity is needed.

This is a time when we should be converging on a final spec and

cleaning it up to send to WGLC.  This is hardly the time to be 

changing something fundamental like the data frame format for

some minor gains.  If we want to optimize and fine

tune, I'm sure this issue isn't the only one.  We need to keep

our eye on the schedule, otherwise we could be at this for a

very long time.

 

Regards,

Abhijit

 

 

 

---

From: Dorothy.Gellert [at] nokia.com [mailto:Dorothy.Gellert [at] nokia.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 5:19 PM
To: Abhijit Choudhury (achoudhu); capwap [at] frascone.com
Cc: margaret [at] thingmagic.com; rbonica [at] juniper.net
Subject: RE: [Capwap] Issue 244: Preamble Header Optimization moved from WishList to Active Issues Database

Hi Abhijit-

 

The confusion regarding this issue and the reason its being reconsidered as an open issue is that based on the disucsssions during the interim meeting,  the Chairs asked for this issue be discussed further on the list.  Also during the interim its was suggested that we close new feautures and optimizations, as David Kessens email posted after the interim indicates.   Some members of the WG believe this issue was not meant to go on the Wish List.   All the chairs agree that direction for this issue and the timing of the Optimization freeze, was not clear to the WG. 

 

Since the timing is unclear, we are revisiting this on the WG list.    We were hoping the WG membership would clearly indicate if they want to adopt the optimization, reject the optimization or put this on the Wish List.    Note also, that this issue is not part of the April 9th consensus check deadline and should be considered outside the the call.

 

Do you care to voice your choice of alternatives?  This may encourage others to do so also.   We have a few opinions, but not much to base rough consensus on yet.

 

Best Regards,

Dorothy

---

From: ext Abhijit Choudhury (achoudhu) [mailto:achoudhu [at] cisco.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 3:12 PM
To: Gellert Dorothy (Nokia-SIR/MtView); capwap [at] frascone.com
Cc: margaret [at] thingmagic.com; rbonica [at] juniper.net
Subject: RE: [Capwap] Issue 244: Preamble Header Optimization moved from WishList to Active Issues Database

Hi Dorothy,

 

We had discussed this earlier and agreed that this was a "nice to have"

and not a bug.  I recall we received very clear direction from our

Area Director to focus on fixing real issues, and not deal with

optimizations:

http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap/msg04168.html

 

I thought that is why we had put it on our wish list. 

I'm not clear why we are opening up items that we have

previously decided items for discussion again.

 

Thanks,

Abhijit

 

---

From: Dorothy.Gellert [at] nokia.com [mailto:Dorothy.Gellert [at] nokia.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 11:32 AM
To: capwap [at] frascone.com
Cc: margaret [at] thingmagic.com; rbonica [at] juniper.net
Subject: [Capwap] Issue 244: Preamble Header Optimization moved from WishList to Active Issues Database

Dear WG,

While reviewing the recently closed issues, it appears that Issue 244, Preamble Header Optimization, was mistakenly moved to the Wish list without a clear decision from the WG to do so.  As a result, we'll be moving issue 244 from the Wish list back into the "features" section of the database, so that the WG can further discuss this issue and decide what to do about it.  Issue 244 should be considered an open issue against the CAPWAP drafts.

Issue 244 was discussed on the list under issue 224 before the interim meeting, during the Interim meeting and again further discussed on the WG list.  The proposed solution was sent to the list on Jan 31, 2007 in this message:  http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap/msg04161.html

It does not appear that the WG made a decision on this issue either way, before it was moved to the Wish list, possibly because the discussion was lost inside a discussion of related issues.

The WG should consider the proposed solution for Issue 244, and discuss the following alternatives on the WG list:

1) Adopt the proposed optimizations
2) Reject the proposed optimizations
3) Move Issue 244 to the Wish list (as this is an optimization, not a bug fix) for future consideration.

Best Regards,
Mani, Margaret and Dorothy