[Capwap] kindly announce that WGLC is over in the mailing list.

[Richard <[e-mail]>]

Dear Chairs:

I think that WG last Call should be already over.
If it is ok, kindly announce it  in the mailing list.

Regards
Richard


在 2009-8-27，下午6:16， [e-mail] 写道：

> Send Capwap mailing list submissions to
> 	[e-mail]
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	[e-mail]
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	[e-mail]
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Capwap digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. REMINDER: WG Last Call on MIB Documents (Margaret Wasserman)
>   2. Re: REMINDER: WG Last Call on MIB Documents (Romascanu, Dan  
> (Dan))
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 15:19:40 -0400
> From: Margaret Wasserman <[e-mail]>
> Subject: [Capwap] REMINDER: WG Last Call on MIB Documents
> To: capwap <[e-mail]>
> Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>
>
> Just a reminder that we have an open WG Last Call on the MIB documents
> (see below).  If you know of any reason why we should not forward
> these documents to the IESG for publication as Proposed Standard RFCs,
> please send e-mail to the CAPWAP mailing list by midnight GMT TOMORROW
> (Thursday, August 27th).
>
> Thank you,
> Margaret
>
> (for the CAPWAP WG Co-Chairs)
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> From: Margaret Wasserman <[e-mail]>
>> Date: August 13, 2009 2:23:19 PM EDT
>> To: capwap <[e-mail]>
>> Subject: [Capwap] WG Last Call on MIB Documents
>>
>>
>> Hi Everyone,
>>
>> The updated MIB documents are now available in the Internet-Drafts
>> repository:
>>
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-capwap-base-mib-06.txt
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-capwap-802dot11-mib-05.txt
>>
>> This message will serve as a two week Working Group Last Call on  
>> these
>> documents.  If there are no blocking issues raised in the next two
>> weeks, we will submit these documents to our AD, Dan Romascanu, for
>> publication as Proposed Standard RFCs.
>>
>> The changes in the latest versions of these drafts are summarized and
>> explained in the slides from IETF 75:
>>
>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/75/slides/capwap-0.ppt
>>
>> There is only one significant change, a switch to using the MAC
>> Address of the wireless access point as the unique identifier for the
>> WTP.  The previous version used the serial number, which was not
>> guaranteed to be unique across different models/brands of access
>> points.  A concern was raised that the MAC Address is not listed in
>> the CAPWAP Base Specification as a required field, although it is  
>> also
>> not listed as optional.  There was agreement at the meeting to submit
>> RFC errata on the CAPAP Base Spec to make the MAC Address mandatory,
>> and that agreement was checked on the mailing list.
>>
>> If you have any blocking concerns with sending the CAPWAP MIB
>> documents to the IESG for publication as Proposed Standard RFCs,
>> please send your concerns to the CAPWAP mailing list by midnight GMT
>> on Thursday, August 27th (two weeks from today).
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Margaret
>>
>> (for the CAPWAP WG chairs)
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
>> http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 09:21:31 +0200
> From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [Capwap] REMINDER: WG Last Call on MIB Documents
> To: "Margaret Wasserman" <[e-mail]>,	"capwap"
> 	<[e-mail]>
> Message-ID:
> 	<[e-mail] 
> >
> 	
> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"
>
> One question that I would like to ask as AD and be reflected in the
> PROTO write-ups is whether the MIB documents were reviewed by the WG
> chairs and by the editors of the CAPWAP protocol RFCs to make sure  
> that
> the content is consistent with the definitions in these documents.
>
> Thanks and Regards,
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 10:20 PM
>> To: capwap
>> Subject: [Capwap] REMINDER: WG Last Call on MIB Documents
>>
>>
>> Just a reminder that we have an open WG Last Call on the MIB
>> documents (see below).  If you know of any reason why we
>> should not forward these documents to the IESG for
>> publication as Proposed Standard RFCs, please send e-mail to
>> the CAPWAP mailing list by midnight GMT TOMORROW (Thursday,
>> August 27th).
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Margaret
>>
>> (for the CAPWAP WG Co-Chairs)
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>> From: Margaret Wasserman <[e-mail]>
>>> Date: August 13, 2009 2:23:19 PM EDT
>>> To: capwap <[e-mail]>
>>> Subject: [Capwap] WG Last Call on MIB Documents
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Everyone,
>>>
>>> The updated MIB documents are now available in the Internet-Drafts
>>> repository:
>>>
>>>
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-capwap-base-mib-06.txt
>>>
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-capwap-802dot11- 
>> mib-05.
>>> txt
>>>
>>> This message will serve as a two week Working Group Last
>> Call on these
>>> documents.  If there are no blocking issues raised in the next two
>>> weeks, we will submit these documents to our AD, Dan Romascanu, for
>>> publication as Proposed Standard RFCs.
>>>
>>> The changes in the latest versions of these drafts are
>> summarized and
>>> explained in the slides from IETF 75:
>>>
>>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/75/slides/capwap-0.ppt
>>>
>>> There is only one significant change, a switch to using the MAC
>>> Address of the wireless access point as the unique
>> identifier for the
>>> WTP.  The previous version used the serial number, which was not
>>> guaranteed to be unique across different models/brands of access
>>> points.  A concern was raised that the MAC Address is not listed in
>>> the CAPWAP Base Specification as a required field, although
>> it is also
>>> not listed as optional.  There was agreement at the meeting
>> to submit
>>> RFC errata on the CAPAP Base Spec to make the MAC Address
>> mandatory,
>>> and that agreement was checked on the mailing list.
>>>
>>> If you have any blocking concerns with sending the CAPWAP MIB
>>> documents to the IESG for publication as Proposed Standard RFCs,
>>> please send your concerns to the CAPWAP mailing list by
>> midnight GMT
>>> on Thursday, August 27th (two weeks from today).
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Margaret
>>>
>>> (for the CAPWAP WG chairs)
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>
> End of Capwap Digest, Vol 45, Issue 2
> *************************************

_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap

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