|
Mani,
802.11
infrastructure to me is the physical/software/standard environment that
facilitates the deployment of the 802.11 standard (e.g. the suggested
AC).
But in
any case, as there seem to be be at least two fundamentally different ways of
looking at this problem domain, it would be nicer and wiser to proceed with
solving the problem in both directions at least initially, and then see which
approach is more promising once we have concrete technical proposals. So, it
would be nice to now create high-level technical solution alternatives for the
problems that you have compiled.
Branislav
-----Original Message-----
From:
Mani, Mahalingam (Mahalingam) [mailto:mmani [at] avaya.com]
Sent: Tuesday,
December 02, 2003 2:22 PM
To: Branislav Meandzija; Pat R. Calhoun;
lwapp [at] frascone.com
Subject: RE: [Lwapp] Problem Statement Draft and
Charter.
Branislav,
I would like to
understand what you mean by 802.11 infrastructure. If you meant 802.11 MAC
layer protocols ? CAPWAP does not attempt (re-inventing) that ? very much
along the lines of principles of not re-inventing protocols.
More
inline.
-----Original
Message-----
From: Branislav
Meandzija [mailto:bran [at] arraycomm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 12:35
PM
To: Pat R. Calhoun; Mani,
Mahalingam (Mahalingam); lwapp [at] frascone.com
Subject: RE: [Lwapp] Problem Statement
Draft and Charter.
I-----Original
Message-----
From: Pat R.
Calhoun [mailto:pcalhoun [at] airespace.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 9:53
AM
To: Branislav Meandzija;
Mani, Mahalingam (Mahalingam); lwapp [at] frascone.com
Subject: RE: [Lwapp] Problem Statement
Draft and Charter.
The IETF could assist such efforts by standardizing 802.11 MIBs, PIBs, or
LDAP schema. If this is not sufficient, then generic requirements should be
formulated that are not well addressed by the current set of IETF protocols
and should be addressed in the context of other security, management work,
etc.
<PRC> Inter-SDO standardization has never been very
successful and is very difficult to organize.
[bran] The AAA and mobility groups are working extremely well together with
3GPP, 3GPP2 and the IEEE.
<PRC-2> I didn't say
impossible, I said difficult. Further, we've already discussed why this
belongs in the IETF
numerous
times
both in face to face meetings as well as over the list. We have thumbs up
from the IEEE leadership on this,
and
they have
provided some very talented people to help with the interactions. So if your
comment is that the IEEE
and
the IETF is
incorrect, and you have specific reasons why this belongs in a specific SDO,
then please speak up. So
far
you've been
rather vague about where (any SDO other than IETF), and why
(because).
<PRC> BTW, 3GPP and 3GPP2 have their hands
full with GSM and CDMA, respectively. WiFi is not an SDO and IEEE agrees
this
is an IETF
problem.
[bran] I
didn't suggest 3GPP or 3GPP2 but just named them as examples of SDOs which
work well with the IETF. I woul disagree that 802.11
infrastructure is the IETF's problem but
[Mani,
Mahalingam (Mahalingam)] 802.11 infrastructure is a new interesting
terminology. CAPWAP is attempting defining solution for the 802.11 linkage
to IP infrastructure.
Otherwise we can start
similar efforts for 802.16, 802.20, etc.
<PRC> We
have already agreed to limit the scope to 802.11. If the resulting work is
successful, and we are done, we can look at tackling other
technologies.
[bran] That would be analogous
to defining a new IP protocol specific to a particular layer 2, lets say
802.3.
<PRC-2> There is absolutely nothing wrong with
trying to solve a very specific market need, and this is the direction
that
the
(proposed) WG has taken, at the request of the
IESG.
[bran] I
have no problem with solving a specific market need within this umbrella.
But, let's do it please in an architecturally sound way where we don't
end up with a soup of standards which nobody cares about. To avoid that, we
would approach creation of new protocols more conservatively and make due
with the existing set.
Or, did the IESG
also agree to create a new IETF management protocol specific to
802.11?
[Mani,
Mahalingam (Mahalingam)] IESG has suggested, so far, to focus on
articulating the problem and architecture. It is far from taking a position
on protocol choice this early.
That
will be putting the cart before the horse ? although it is an effective way
to initiate discussions on the problem.
Branislav
[Mani,
Mahalingam (Mahalingam)]
-mani
|
arraycomm.com)