| Issue 171: Pasi nits on binding spec | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
|
From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) (pcalhoun |
|
| Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 10:06:03 -0700 (PDT) | |
> Section 3: CAPWAP base protocol requires that all Request messages are
odd
> numbers, and Responses even; these aren't.
Yes, this was raised already and will be addressed in the next rev.
> Section 3.1, "sent after the CAPWAP Configuration Update Request
message
> (..) has been received by the WTP" probably
> means "sent after the CAPWAP Configuration Update Response message has
been
> received by the AC"?
Oh - right.
>
> Section 5.10: "Station QoS Profile" should be "IEEE 802.11 Station QoS
> Profile"
Right.
>
> Section 6.1 and 6.21: are some of these 802.11 information elements
> optional, or are all of them always included?
Always, since the text states:
<current text>
The inclusion of this message
element MUST also include the IEEE 802.11 Information Element message
element, containing the following 802.11 IEs:
</current text>
>
> Section 6.1 and 6.21: what do you put in "Key Status" if you're not
using
> encryption at all?
Well... Good question. The way it works is that the absence of a key
means that the key status field is irrelevant, but perhaps it would be
good to define a new "unused" value. However, this *could* create a
backward compatibility problem. Alternatively, we could add text that
simply states that this field is ignored if the key field has a zero
length, and then it really doesn't matter what value was used.
OK?
>
> Section 6.21: to avoid repetition of text, I'd suggest simply pointing
to
> existing text in Section 6.1 for field
> descriptions.
Tried that before - had a bug asking for specific text :(
>
> Section 6.1 and 6.21: "32 byte Session Key" -- length depends on "Key
> Length" field, right?
Ack!
>
> Section 6.2/10.6: is the "Combiner" a bit field or enumerated field?
> (And in the former case, an explicit bit diagram would be very useful
to
> avoid confusion about bit numbering)
Enumerated - fixed it. Thanks.
>
> Section 6.14, 6.20, and 6.22: the 802.1p Tag field should probably be
shown
> as 3 bits in the diagram, to make it
> unambiguous about which bits are not used.
Well... That would truncate a packet on a non-byte boundary. Do you
really believe that would help clear things up?
>
> Section 6.15: The sentence "Note that AKM-Only is MAY be set..." would
> benefit for some clarification -- does 802.11
> really drop all unencrypted EAPOL-Key frames if you have an encryption
key?
> (it seems that would cause difficulties
> when e.g. client reboots -- but I'm not sure what 802.11 does here)
When the client reboots, it will re-associate and that will cause the
state to change anyhow. If 802.1X is enabled, then the station will need
to re-authenticate in order to get to the point where it can transmit
data frames. This is normal IEEE 802.11-2007/802.1X behavior - and is
very well defined in the existing standards.
>
> Section 6.15: "MUST NOT be sent if the WTP had not specifically
advertised
> support for the requested encryption
> scheme": would be easier to understand if it said how the WTP
advertises
> this (presumably, the Encryption Capabilities
> field in the WTP Descriptor Message Element?)
Got it. Added text at the end of the paragraph:
<new text>
6.15. IEEE 802.11 Station Session Key
The IEEE 802.11 Station Session Key message element is sent when the
AC determines that encryption of a station must be performed in the
WTP. This message element MUST NOT be present without the IEEE
802.11 Station (see Section 6.13) message element, and MUST NOT be
sent if the WTP had not specifically advertised support for the
requested encryption scheme, through the WTP Descriptor Message
Element's Encryption Capabilities Field (see Section 8.1).
</new text>
>
> Sections 6.20 and 6.22: the DSCP Tag field should probably be shown as
6
> bits in the diagram, to make it unambiguous
> how it's sent in
> IPv4/IPv6 header (and which bits are unused).
See above. I think showing fragments of a byte is even harder to
understand. I have never seen RFCs to that.
> Section 6.16, "maximum value of 65535" -- the fields are 32 bits, so
> probably should be 4294967295?
Oh - you want to use *that* decimal system ;-)
>
> Section 6.20 and 6.22: "if packets are to be DSCP tagged" would
benefit of
> clarifying what packets are meant (I guess
> it means CAPWAP Data packets sent from the WTP to the AC?).
New text:
<new text>
6.20. IEEE 802.11 Update Station QoS
The IEEE 802.11 Update Station QoS message element is used to change
the Quality of Service policy on the WTP for a given station. The
QoS tags included in this message element are to be applied to
packets received by the station.
[...]
6.22. IEEE 802.11 WTP Quality of Service
The IEEE 802.11 WTP Quality of Service message element value is sent
by the AC to the WTP to communicate quality of service configuration
information. The QoS tag included in this message element are to be
applied to packets received by the WTP from station on a particular
radio.
</new text>
>
> Section 6.22/10.9: is the "Tag Packets" a bit field or enumerated
field?
> (In the former case, an explicit bit diagram would be very useful to
avoid
> confusion about bit numbering.)
Agreed - and I've fixed this to be:
<new text>
6.22. IEEE 802.11 WTP Quality of Service
[...]
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Radio ID | Tag Packets |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
[...]
Tag Packet: A bit field indicating whether CAPWAP packets should be
tagged for QoS purposes. The field has the following format:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Reserved |D|P|U|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
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.
D: When set, this indicates that the CAPWAP packets should be
tagged for QoS purposes using DSCP.
P: When set, this indicates that the CAPWAP packets should be
tagged for QoS purposes using 802.1p.
U: When set, this indicates that the CAPWAP packets should be
untagged. When set, both the D and P bits MUST NOT be set.
</new text>
>
> Section 6.23: "Country Code" field probably should be called "Country
> String" (since it contains other things than the
> country code, and it's called "country string" in 802.11), and it
should be
> 3 octets instead of 4.
OK, again one key goal through this process is to minimize any
interoperability issues with existing implementations, so instead of
changing the length of the field, I propose adding the following
sentence to the end of the Country String field description:
<new text>
Note that the last byte of the Country String MUST be set to NULL.
</new text>
>
> Section 6.23: The description of third octet of Country field doesn't
quite
> match IEEE 802.11 (e.g. 'X' character is
> missing, and the '255'
> entry is confusing).
Yup - you are absolutely correct. I have fixed it to be:
<new text>
1. an ASCII space character, if the regulations under which the
station is operating encompass all environments in the country,
2. an ASCII 'O' character, if the regulations under which the
station is operating are for an outdoor environment only, or
3. an ASCII 'I' character, if the regulations under which the
station is operating are for an indoor environment only.
4. an ASCII 'X' character, if the station is operating under a
non-country entity. The first two octets of the non-country
entity shall be two ASCII 'XX' characters.
</new text>
I do want to note that this breaks backward interoperability, however
I'm not sure I've ever seen an AP that advertises the last option.
>
> Section 6.23: reference [ISO.3166.1984] should be to the latest
edition, not
> 1984 version:
>
> [ISO.3166-1] International Organization for Standardization, "Codes
> for the representation of names of countries and their
> subdivisions - Part 1: Country codes", ISO Standard
> 3166-1:1997
Got it - thanks!
>
> Section 6.25: an explicit bit diagram would be useful for the "Radio
Type"
> field, since it's not clear whether e.g.
> "2" really means bit number 2, or perhaps bit number 6 (rest of the
text
> suggests it's the latter).
I agree, and I have fixed it to be:
<new text>
6.25. IEEE 802.11 WTP Radio Information
[...]
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Radio ID | Radio Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Radio Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
[...]
Radio Type: The type of radio present. Note this is a bit field
which is used to specify support for more than a single type of
PHY/MAC. The field has the following format:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Reservd|N|G|A|B|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Reservd: 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.
N: An IEEE 802.11n radioP.
G: An IEEE 802.11g radio.
A: An IEEE 802.11a radio.
B: An IEEE 802.11b radio.
</new text>
Note this makes certain assumptions about the position of the first bit,
and I think most people in the past would have assumed what I've done
here. However, this was a potential cause of interoperability issue, and
therefore could require an implementation to change.
>
> Section 8.1: an explicit bit diagram would be useful (since bit
numbering
> has been somewhat inconsistent in various
> parts of the spec).
Yes, you have a great point. Here is the new text:
<text>
8.1. WTP Descriptor Message Element, Encryption Capabilities Field:
This specification defines two new bits for the WTP Descriptor's
Encryption Capabilities field, as defined in
[I-D.ietf-capwap-protocol-specification]. Note that only the bits
defined in this specification are described below. The format of the
Encryption Capabilities Field is:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |A|T| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
A: WTP supports AES-CCMP, as defined in [IEEE.802-11.2007].
T: WTP supports TKIP and Michael, as defined in [IEEE.802-11.2007]
and [WPA], respectively.
</new text>
Again, this MAY have create an interoperability issue since the old text
was so vague. It is difficult to determine how people interpreted the
old text.
>
> Section 8.1: WEP is missing from the list?
Given that WEP was introduced so long ago, it was just assumed that WTPs
support it. However, with TKIP and AES possibly requiring changes to the
ASIC, we wanted to allow WTPs to advertise these capabilities.
>
> Section 8.1: there probably should be IANA considerations text about
how the
> remaining bits are allocated.
I'm have opened issue 172 to track this issue.
http://www.capwap.org/cgi-bin/roundup.cgi/CAPWAP/issue172
>
> Section 10.2, "defines 27 new Message Types" -> "defines 25 new
Message
> Element Types"?
This was fixed when I cleaned up IANA considerations, given the issue
you raised on the base spec.
<new IANA text>
10. IANA Considerations
This section details the actions to be taken by IANA during the
publication of the specification. There are numerous registries that
need to be created, and the contents, document action (see [RFC5226],
and registry format are all included below. Note that in cases where
bit fields are referred to, the bit numbering is left to right, where
the leftmost bit is labelled as bit zero (0).
10.1. CAPWAP Wireless Binding Identifier
This specification requires a value assigned from the Wireless
Binding Identifier namespace, defined in
[I-D.ietf-capwap-protocol-specification]. The value assigned is to
be added to Section 2.1. The value of one (1)is highly recommended,
as it is used in implementations.
10.2. CAPWAP IEEE 802.11 Message Types
This document creates a new sub-registry to the existing CAPWAP
Message Type registry, which is defined in
[I-D.ietf-capwap-protocol-specification].
IANA will create and maintain the CAPWAP IEEE 802.11 Message Types
sub-registry for all message types whose Enterprise Number is set to
13277. The namespace is 32 bits (0-4294967295), where the values
3398911 and 3398912 are reserved and must not be assigned. The
values 3398913 and 3398914 are allocated in this specification, and
can be found in Section 3. Any new assignments of a CAPWAP IEEE
802.11 Message Type, whose Enterprise Number is set to 13277)
requires a Standards Action. The format of the registry to be
maintained by IANA has the following format:
CAPWAP IEEE 802.11 Message Type Reference
Control Message Value
10.3. CAPWAP Control Message Type
This specification defines new values to be registered to the
existing CAPWAP Control Message Type registry, defined in
[I-D.ietf-capwap-protocol-specification]. The values used in this
document, 1024 through 1048, as listed in Figure 8 are recommended as
implementations already exist that make use of these values.
10.4. IEEE 802.11 Key Status
The Key Status field in the IEEE 802.11 Add WLAN message element (see
Section 6.1) and IEEE 802.11 Update WLAN message element (see
Calhoun, Editor, et al. Expires February 1, 2009 [Page 64]
Internet-Draft CAPWAP Protocol Binding for IEEE 802.11 July 2008
Section 6.21) is used to provide information about the status of the
keying exchange. This document defines four values, and the
remaining values are controlled and maintained by IANA and requires a
Standards Action.
10.5. IEEE 802.11 QoS
The QoS field in the IEEE 802.11 Add WLAN message element (see
Section 6.1) is used to configure a QoS policy for the WLAN. The
namespace is 8 bits (0-255), where the values zero (0) through four
(4) are allocated in this specification, and can be found in
Section 6.1. This namespace is managed by IANA and assignments
require a Standards Action. IANA will create the IEEE 802.11 QoS
registry, whose format is:
IEEE 802.11 QoS Type Value Reference
10.6. IEEE 802.11 Auth Type
The Auth Type field in the IEEE 802.11 Add WLAN message element (see
Section 6.1) is 8 bits and is used to configure the IEEE 802.11
authentication policy for the WLAN. The namespace is 8 bits (0-255),
where the values zero (0) and one (1) are allocated in this
specification, and can be found in Section 6.1. This namespace is
managed by IANA and assignments require a Standards Action. IANA
will create the IEEE 802.11 Auth Type registry, whose format is:
IEEE 802.11 Auth Type Type Value Reference
10.7. IEEE 802.11 Antenna Combiner
The Combiner field in the IEEE 802.11 Antenna message element (see
Section 6.2) is used to provide information about the WTP's antennas.
The namespace is 8 bits (0-255), where the values zero (0) and one
(1) are allocated in this specification, and can be found in
Section 6.2. This namespace is managed by IANA and assignments
require a Standards Action. IANA will create the IEEE 802.11 Antenna
Combiner registry, whose format is:
IEEE 802.11 Antenna Combiner Type Value Reference
10.8. IEEE 802.11 Antenna Selection
The Antenna Selection field in the IEEE 802.11 Antenna message
element (see Section 6.2) is used to provide information about the
WTP's antennas. The namespace is 8 bits (0-255), where the values
zero (0) is reserved and used and the values one (1) through four (4)
are allocated in this specification, and can be found in Section 6.2.
Calhoun, Editor, et al. Expires February 1, 2009 [Page 65]
Internet-Draft CAPWAP Protocol Binding for IEEE 802.11 July 2008
This namespace is managed by IANA and assignments require a Standards
Action. IANA will create the IEEE 802.11 Antenna Selection registry,
whose format is:
IEEE 802.11 Antenna Selection Type Value Reference
10.9. IEEE 802.11 Session Key Flags
The Flags field in the IEEE 802.11 Station Session Key message
element (see Section 6.15) is 16 bits and is used to configure the
session key association with the mobile device. This specification
defines bits zero (0) and one (1), while bits two (2) through sixteen
are reserved. The reserved bits are managed by IANA and whose
assignment requires a Standard Action. IANA will create the IEEE
802.11 Session Key Flags registry, whose format is:
IEEE 802.11 Station Session Key Bit Position Reference
10.10. IEEE 802.11 Tag Packets
The Tag Packets field in the IEEE 802.11 WTP Quality of Service
message element (see Section 6.22) is 8 bits and is used to specify
how the CAPWAP Data Channel packets are to be tagged. This
specification defines bits five (5) through seven (7). The remaining
bits are managed by IANA and whose assignment requires a Standard
Action. IANA will create the IEEE 802.11 Tag Packets registry, whose
format is:
IEEE 802.11 Tag Packets Bit Position Reference
10.11. IEEE 802.11 WTP Radio Fail
The Type field in the IEEE 802.11 WTP Radio Fail Alarm Indication
message element (see Section 6.24) is used to provide information on
why a WTP's radio has failed. The namespace is 8 bits (0-255), where
the values zero (0) is reserved and unused, while the values one (1)
and two (2) are allocated in this specification, and can be found in
Section 6.24. This namespace is managed by IANA and assignments
require a Standards Action. IANA will create the IEEE 802.11 WTP
Radio Fail registry, whose format is:
IEEE 802.11 WTP Radio Fail Type Value Reference
10.12. IEEE 802.11 WTP Radio Type
The Radio Type field in the IEEE 802.11 WTP Radio Information message
element (see Section 6.25) is 8 bits and is used to provide
information about the WTP's radio type. This specification defines
Calhoun, Editor, et al. Expires February 1, 2009 [Page 66]
Internet-Draft CAPWAP Protocol Binding for IEEE 802.11 July 2008
bits five (5) through seven (7). The remaining bits are managed by
IANA and whose assignment requires a Standard Action. IANA will
create the IEEE 802.11 WTP Radio Type registry, whose format is:
IEEE 802.11 WTP Radio Type Bit Position Reference
</new IANA text>
-
Issue 171: Pasi nits on binding spec Pat Calhoun (pacalhou), July 31 2008
-
Re: Issue 171: Pasi nits on binding spec Pasi.Eronen, August 7 2008
-
Re: Issue 171: Pasi nits on binding spec Pat Calhoun (pacalhou), August 7 2008
- Re: Issue 171: Pasi nits on binding spec Pasi.Eronen, August 8 2008
- Re: Issue 171: Pasi nits on binding spec Pat Calhoun (pacalhou), August 13 2008
-
Re: Issue 171: Pasi nits on binding spec Pat Calhoun (pacalhou), August 7 2008
-
Re: Issue 171: Pasi nits on binding spec Pasi.Eronen, August 7 2008
Results generated by Tiger Technologies using MHonArc.