| Re: CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T12 | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) (dromasca avaya.com)
|
|
| Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:06:39 -0700 (PDT) | |
OK with me. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun [at] cisco.com] > Sent: Friday, June 20, 2008 3:07 AM > To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); Romascanu, Dan (Dan); capwap [at] frascone.com > Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T12 > > Given that Dan was comfortable with proposed change to the AC > Descriptor message element. I am proposing to make the same > change to two other similar message elements in the base > protocol. This does not change the packet format in any way, > and therefore does not introduce any compatibility issues. I > think it simply provides more clarity on the format and > expected contents. > > <text> > 4.6.40. WTP Board Data > > The WTP Board Data message element is sent by the WTP to the AC and > contains information about the hardware present. > > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Vendor Identifier | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Board Data Sub-Element... > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > > Type: 40 for WTP Board Data > > Length: >=14 > > Vendor Identifier: A 32-bit value containing the IANA > assigned "SMI > Network Management Private Enterprise Codes" > > Board Data Sub-Element: The WTP Board Data message > element contains > multiple Board Data sub-elements, some of which are > mandatory and > some are optional, as described below. The Board Data > sub-element > has the following format: > > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Vendor Identifier | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Board Data Type | Board Data Length | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Board Data Value... > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > Board Data Type: The Board Data Type field identifies the data > being encoded. The CAPWAP protocol defines the following > values, and each of these types identify whether > their presence > is mandatory or optional: > > 0 - WTP Model Number: The WTP Model Number MUST be included > in the WTP Board Data message element. > > 1 - WTP Serial Number: The WTP Serial Number MUST > be included > in the WTP Board Data message element. > > 2 - Board ID: A hardware identifier, which MAY be > included in > the WTP Board Data message element. > > 3 - Board Revision A revision number of the board, > which MAY > be included in the WTP Board Data message element. > > 4 - Base MAC Address The WTP's Base MAC Address, > which MAY be > assigned to the primary Ethernet interface. > > Board Data Length: The length of the data in the Board Data > Value field, whose length MUST NOT exceed 1024 octets. > > Board Data Value: The data associated with the Board Data Type > field for this Board Data sub-element. > > 4.6.41. WTP Descriptor > > The WTP Descriptor message element is used by a WTP to communicate > its current hardware and software (firmware) configuration. The > value contains the following fields. > > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Max Radios | Radios in use | Encryption Capabilities | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Descriptor Sub-Element... > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > > Type: 41 for WTP Descriptor > > Length: >= 31 > > Max Radios: An 8-bit value representing the number of > radios (where > each radio is identified via the Radio ID field) > supported by the > WTP. > > Radios in use: An 8-bit value representing the number of > radios in > use in the WTP. > > Encryption Capabilities: This 16-bit field is used by the WTP to > communicate its capabilities to the AC. A WTP that > does not have > any encryption capabilities sets this field to zero > (0). Refer to > the specific wireless binding for further specification of the > Encryption Capabilities field. > > Descriptor Sub-Element: The WTP Descriptor message > element contains > multiple Descriptor sub-elements, some of which are > mandatory and > some are optional, as described below. The Descriptor > sub-element > has the following format: > > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Descriptor Vendor Identifier | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Descriptor Type | Descriptor Length | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Descriptor Data... > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > Descriptor Vendor Identifier: A 32-bit value > containing the IANA > assigned "SMI Network Management Private Enterprise Codes". > > Descriptor Type: The Descriptor Type field identifies the data > being encoded. The CAPWAP protocol defines the following > values, and each of these types identify whether > their presence > is mandatory or optional: > > 0 - Hardware Version: The WTP hardware version > number MUST be > present. > > 1 - Active Software Version: The WTP running > software version > number MUST be present. > > 2 - Boot Version: The WTP boot loader version > number MUST be > present. > > 3 - Other Software Version: The WTP non-running software > (firmware) version number MAY be present. This > type is used > to communicate alternate software versions that are > available on the WTP's non-volatile storage. > > Descriptor Length: Length of vendor specific encoding of > Descriptor Data field, whose length MUST NOT exceed 1024 > octets. > > Descriptor Data: Vendor specific data of WTP > information encoded > in the UTF-8 format. > </text> > > PatC > > -----Original Message----- > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 10:06 PM > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); capwap [at] frascone.com > Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T12 > > I think 4/5 is odd, personally. However, I think I have a > better idea, and one that I think will be MUCH clearer. In > order to help express the idea, I will include the whole text > for the AC Descriptor section. If this format works for you, > I will replicate it in another two areas in the spec that I > had updated due to another IESG review comment. > > <text> > 4.6.1. AC Descriptor > > The AC Descriptor message element is used by the AC to communicate > its current state. The value contains the following fields. > > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Stations | Limit | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Active WTPs | Max WTPs | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Security | R-MAC Field | Reserved1 | DTLS Policy | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | AC Information... > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > Type: 1 for AC Descriptor > > Length: >= 12 > > Stations: The number of stations currently served by the AC > > Limit: The maximum number of stations supported by the AC > > Active WTPs: The number of WTPs currently attached to the AC > > Max WTPs: The maximum number of WTPs supported by the AC > > Security: A 8 bit mask specifying the authentication credential > type supported by the AC. The following values are > supported (see > Section 2.4.4): > > 1 - X.509 Certificate Based > > 2 - Pre-Shared Secret > > R-MAC Field: The AC supports the optional Radio MAC Address field > in the CAPWAP transport Header (see Section 4.3). > > Reserved: A set of reserved bits for future use. All > implementations complying with this protocol MUST set > to zero any > bits that are reserved in the version of the protocol > supported by > that implementation. Receivers MUST ignore all bits not defined > for the version of the protocol they support. > > DTLS Policy: The AC communicates its policy on the use > of DTLS for > the CAPWAP data channel. The AC MAY communicate more than one > supported option, represented by the bit field below. The WTP > MUST abide by one of the options communicated by AC. The > following bit field values are supported: > > 1 - Clear Text Data Channel Supported > > 2 - DTLS Enabled Data Channel Supported > > AC Information: The AC Descriptor message element > contains multiple > AC Information sub-elements, and defines two sub-types, each of > which MUST be present. The AC Information sub-element has the > following format: > > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | AC Information Vendor Identifier | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | AC Information Type | AC Information Length | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | AC Information Data... > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > AC Information Vendor Identifier: A 32-bit value > containing the > IANA assigned "SMI Network Management Private > Enterprise Codes" > > AC Information Type: Vendor specific encoding of AC > information. > The following values are supported. Both the Hardware and > Software Version sub-elements MUST be included in the AC > Descriptor message element. > > 4 - Hardware Version: The AC's hardware version number. > > 5 - Software Version: The AC's Software (firmware) version > number. > > AC Information Length: Length of vendor specific > encoding of AC > information, with a maximum size of 1024. > > AC Information Data: Vendor specific encoding of AC > information. > </text> > > -----Original Message----- > From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca [at] avaya.com] > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 11:14 AM > To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap [at] frascone.com > Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T12 > > I won't fight this to death but I still find it confusing. > Writhing 4 in a field which can be either 4 or 5 may confuse > other as well. What about 4/5? > > Dan > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun [at] cisco.com] > > Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 6:40 PM > > To: capwap [at] frascone.com > > Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T12 > > > > All, > > > > The following is the IESG Comment Review: > > > > T12 - Section 4.6.1 - in the AC Descriptor protocol > diagram delete > > =4 from the Type > > filed (it can be 4 or 5 as I understand) > > > > Actually, the reason why this is part of the diagram is > because both 4 > > > and 5 MUST be included (as described in the field > description). So in > > order to make this much clearer, we have included this in > the diagram. > > > > PatC > > _________________________________________________________________ > > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > > > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > _________________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap >
-
CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T12 Pat Calhoun (pacalhou), June 16 2008
-
Re: CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T12 Romascanu, Dan (Dan), June 16 2008
-
Re: CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T12 Pat Calhoun (pacalhou), June 18 2008
- Re: CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T12 Pat Calhoun (pacalhou), June 19 2008
- Re: CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T12 Romascanu, Dan (Dan), June 20 2008
- Re: CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T12 Pat Calhoun (pacalhou), June 20 2008
-
Re: CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T12 Pat Calhoun (pacalhou), June 18 2008
-
Re: CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T12 Romascanu, Dan (Dan), June 16 2008
Results generated by Tiger Technologies using MHonArc.