Capwap Mailing List: Re: CONSENSUS CONFIRMATION: #138, #217, #247, #248, #249, #250, #251 & #252

[Abhijit Choudhury (achoudhu) (achoudhu]

Here is my feedback on the consensus request.

Issue #217: Figure 3 needs to be made conistent with the proposed text.
             The Protected field should say "WTP/AC".

Issue #247 - Support the proposed text using "Length" field only.

Issue #249 - Support making UDP-lite mandatory for IPv6.

Issue #138 - Have expressed support in separate email in favor of
             making only encryption/decryption at WTP mandatory.

Thanks,
Abhijit
 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:margaret [at] thingmagic.com] 
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 7:25 PM
To: capwap
Cc: Dorothy Gellert
Subject: [Capwap] CONSENSUS CONFIRMATION: #138, #217, #247, #248, #249,
#250,#251 & #252


Hi All,

As you have seen in previous e-mail from the editors, we discussed 8
issues at the CAPWAP WG meeting in Prague.  This message is an attempt
to confirm our consensus on those issues, and to close all eight issues
by April 9th, so that the changes can be made in the CAPWAP documents
and sent to the IEEE for review starting on April 10th.

Please Note:  This is a ONE WEEK consensus call ending on APRIL 9th,
2007.

Usually, we have two week consensus calls, but given that the agreed
resolutions were sent to the  mailing two weeks ago, and that there has
been little or no objection to the proposed changes on the mailing list,
we are having  a ONE WEEK consensus call, in order to allow the group to
meet our IEEE review deadline.  If anyone has a strong objection to
holding a one week consensus call on one or more of these issues, please
let us know, and we will extend the consensus call for those issues to
two weeks.

Three of the open issues are editorial, which means that the editors
will make the fixes and close these issues.  Please let us know if there
is any objection to closing the three issues listed below after the
corresponding editorial changes have been made.

248 Both IPv4 and IPv6 Addresses not required.
250 Clarification onDTLSRehandshake/DTLSPeerAuthorize/
DTLSIncomingSession
252 Hearbeat timer is undefined

The resolution to one issue had been previously agreed on the list, but
the edits were not included in the -02 draft, due to an oversight.  The
changes were mentioned in the meeting and recirculated to the list by
Pat Calhoun on March 19th, and there has been no objection to making
them.  So, unless there is any objection before April 9th, the agreed
change will be made by the editors, and the issue will be closed.

217 What is frame format with WTP encrypts/decrypts?

There were also four substantive issues discussed by the group:

247 MAC Addresses can be larger than 6 octets

For this issue, we agreed that we should be able to handle 8-byte MAC
addresses in the CAPWAP protocol, and that it would be good to be
flexible to other MAC address lengths.  There was general agreement in
the room for a solution that replaced raw MAC addresses with a
type-address pair.  Pat Calhoun proposed text on the list on March 19th
that uses the type-address pair, and Puneet Agarwal raised an objection
indicating that he would prefer a type-length-address triplet.  No one
else has offered support for the type-length-address triplet approach,
so the chairs believe that we have rough consensus to proceed with the
type-address approach, as discussed in Prague.

249 UDP-Lite as optional transport for CAPWAP

There was general agreement in Prague that UDP-Lite should be the  
mandatory transport for IPv6, with a checksum coverage length of 8.   
Text to this effect was circulated on the list on March 19th, and there
has been no objection.  There was a question about CAPWAP's use of UDP
ports, and a separate issues (#254) has been opened to clarify that
behavior.  So, seeing no objection, the chairs believe that the group
has consensus to make the changes circulated on March 19th to address
this issue.

251 Retransmission of control packets is not exponential

There was agreement in Prague that this needed to be fixed.  Proposed
text was sent to the list by Pat Calhoun on March 19th, and no
objections or questions have been raised about that text.  So, the
chairs believe that the WG has consensus to resolve this issue by making
the change proposed on the list.

138 Support and negotiation of WTP data encryption in the CAPWAP
protocol

This was the most contentious issue discussed in Prague, and it was
difficult for us to reach consensus within the room about how to close
this issue.  In the end, we reached consensus that the working group
could accept the following resolution:

    To provide system component interoperability, the WTP and AC must
    support 802.11 encryption/decryption at the WTP.  The WTP and AC MAY
    support 802.11 encryption/decryption at the AC.

This text was circulated on the list by Pat Calhoun on March 19th.   
There has been no objection on the mailing list, so the chairs believe
that the WG has rough consensus to proceed with this change, as
circulated on the list.

Mani, Dorothy & Margaret
The CAPWAP Co-Chairs


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

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