Capwap Mailing List: Re: Issue 158: Allocation of WBIDs

[Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) (pcalhoun]

Correct, Pasi. The current IANA classification requires a Standards
track RFC for assignment of WBIDs (and every other namespace in the
document). I suspect that if EPCGlobal is using their own Enterprise
Number for control message types, then it is less of an issue. However,
the message element types are still global, and therefore unless you are
using the vendor specific message element, you would need an RFC.

So what I'm hearing is remove 802.16, and keep 802.11 and EPCGlobal. We
just need to work out the details of the IANA classification.

PatC 

-----Original Message-----
From: Pasi.Eronen [at] nokia.com [mailto:Pasi.Eronen [at] nokia.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 2:59 AM
To: margaret [at] thingmagic.com; Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)
Cc: capwap [at] frascone.com
Subject: Re: [Capwap] Issue 158: Allocation of WBIDs


Ok -- but if the intent is to allow CAPWAP bindings (and possibly other
types of CAPWAP specifications) to be developed outside IETF Standards
Track, then the IANA instructions need to be something else than
"Standards Action".

Best regards,
Pasi

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Margaret Wasserman [mailto:margaret [at] thingmagic.com]
> Sent: 29 July, 2008 11:55
> To: Pat Calhoun
> Cc: capwap [at] frascone.com; Eronen Pasi (Nokia-NRC/Helsinki)
> Subject: Re: [Capwap] Issue 158: Allocation of WBIDs
> 
> >
> > Frankly, I don't care much whether we adopt this proposed
> change. The
> > IEEE 802.11 binding specification does not include the WBID value, 
> > so a change would be required for that specification. The bigger
> change, I
> > suspect, is on the EPCGlobal spec. Of particular note, the
> CAPWAP spec
> > currently requires a Standards Action to allocate one of these 
> > numbers, and since the RFID CAPWAP specification is being published 
> > by EPCGlobal, and not the IETF, I'm not sure how they could get a 
> > number assigned.
> > Margaret, you are closer to this than I am, so do you have any 
> > recommendations?
> 
> (Wearing my EPCglobal hat)
> 
> The EPCglobal Discovery Configuration and Initialization (DCI) 
> specification defines a CAPWAP binding for RFID readers.  It is very 
> nearly complete after ~1-1/2 years of work.  EPCglobal requires 
> interoperability testing before they will ratify a standard, and that 
> testing was completed last week.  Final ratification of the EPCglobal
> standard is now blocked on getting an RFC number for CAPWAP.   
> EPCglobal doesn't have any plans to publish DCI as an IETF standards 
> track document.
> 
> The work in EPCglobal was done based on the CAPWAP WG's agreement to 
> assign an binding ID for that purpose in the CAPWAP spec.  While I 
> agree that further binding IDs need to be defined in their bindings, I

> think it would be pretty late to change the agreement with EPCglobal 
> now.
> 
> > Finally, removing the IEEE 802.16 from the list is not a problem, 
> > and I agree that if there is ever a specification that defines the 
> > use of CAPWAP for 802.16, then the number would be assigned at that 
> > time.
> 
> That would be fine with me, as the 802.16 binding doesn't exist, 
> AFAIK.
> 
> Margaret
> 
_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap

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