Capwap Mailing List: Re: 答复: The Status of the CAPWAP WG MIB issues

[Romascanu, Dan (Dan) (dromasca]

Just to make clear what David Black meant (I think) with his comment that  ' 
The General AD (Russ Housley) will decide what, if anything, he wants to see 
done about this.' David performed the Gen-ART tem review and his comment about 
the need to split the document in order to define the optional CAPWAP protocol 
extensions in a separate document than the MIB module definition will remain 
unsolved unless the WG decides to follow David's recommendation. Russ as 
General Area Director can decide to turn this comment into a blocking DISCUSS, 
which will need to be solved. It also can happen that Russ will not find the 
issue important enough to press for changing the documents at this stage - 
basically this would mean sending the MIB document back to the WG. 

I do not know yet Russ's position about this. I can ask his position in advance 
if you want me to. 

Dan


> -----Original Message-----
> From: young [mailto:young [at] h3c.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 2:55 AM
> To: Black_David [at] emc.com; capwap [at] frascone.com; 
> bertietf [at] bwijnen.net; elwynd [at] dial.pipex.com
> Cc: yzhang [at] fortinet.com
> Subject: [Capwap] 答复: The Status of the CAPWAP WG MIB issues
> 
> Hi, David:
> 
> Thanks. OK.
> For 1) and 3), I will note that Russ Housley would handle it.
> For 2), the RFC Editor would handle it.
> 
> Regards
> Richard
> 
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Black_David [at] emc.com [mailto:Black_David [at] emc.com]
> 发送时间: 2009年12月22日 2:21
> 收件人: young [at] h3c.com; capwap [at] frascone.com; 
> bertietf [at] bwijnen.net; elwynd [at] dial.pipex.com
> 抄送: yzhang [at] fortinet.com; Black_David [at] emc.com
> 主题: RE: The Status of the CAPWAP WG MIB issues
> 
> Richard,
> 
> Items 1) and 3) are the same issue, and cannot be resolved at 
> this stage of the process - they will be handled by the IESG. 
>  The details are that my Gen-ART review is advisory; your 
> responsible AD (Dan Romascanu) has expressed a view that the 
> document should not be split, and he and I have "agreed to 
> disagree" on this.  The General AD (Russ Housley) will decide 
> what, if anything, he wants to see done about this.
> 
> The RFC Editor will deal with some of item 2), but I'm 
> disappointed that your draft co-authors are not stepping up 
> to do something about this.
> 
> Thanks,
> --David
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: young [mailto:young [at] h3c.com]
> > Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 1:31 AM
> > To: capwap [at] frascone.com; Black, David; 'Bert Wijnen (IETF)';
> elwynd [at] dial.pipex.com
> > Cc: yzhang [at] fortinet.com
> > Subject: The Status of the CAPWAP WG MIB issues
> > 
> > Hi, All:
> > 
> > Till now, I got the review comments from David, Bert and Elwyn.
> > The drafts text was updated according to the discussion in 
> the mailing
> list.
> > I already sent the updated drafts to the reviewer and ask them to
> confirm
> > whether the changes are ok or not.
> > 
> > There are few open issues left. Please remind me if I 
> missed any one.
> > 1)
> > > Section 9 refers to a usage of
> > > Message Element Extensions which a vendor can chose to 
> implement or
> > not.
> > > It is not normative text and multi-vendor interoperability is not 
> > > required.
> > [Reviewer] The issue was raised by David.
> > [Status] open
> > 
> > 2)
> > > [*] I see lots of editorial problems in the text prior to the MIB 
> > > definitions, most of which are not called out in this review. I 
> > > strongly suggest an editorial pass by a native speaker of English 
> > > prior to IESG Review.
> > [Reviewer] The issue was raised by David.
> > [Status] open
> > 
> > 3)
> > > [*] Why is Section 9 (CAPWAP Message Element Extension) in a MIB 
> > > draft?  MIB drafts generally do not make changes to the protocol
> that
> > > they provide management for.  This section, and the changes in
> Section
> > > 5.7 ought to be in a separate draft that could be standards track.
> > [Reviewer] The issue was raised by David.
> > [Status] open
> > 
> > 4)
> > W: f(capwap-base.mi2), (1343,7) Row 
> "capwapBaseStationEntry" does not
> have a
> > consistent indexing sche
> > me - cannot specify an index item from additional "base row"
> > capwapBaseWtpEntry, since can have only one "base row" which is 
> > capwapBaseWirelessBindingEntry
> > W: f(capwap-base.mi2), (1568,13) Row 
> "capwapBaseRadioEventsStatsEntry"
> does
> > not have a consistent ind
> > exing scheme - cannot specify an index item from additional 
> "base row"
> > capwapBaseWtpEntry, since can
> > have only one "base row" which is capwapBaseWirelessBindingEntry 
> > [Reviewer] The issue was raised by Bert.
> > [Editors] It needs more explain in the object's description 
> [Status] 
> > Richard and Yong are preparing text
> > 
> > I believe the new drafts could be post soon once we have conclusion
> for all
> > the
> > Open issues.
> > 
> > Regards
> > Richard
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
> http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap
> 
> Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap
>