[Capwap] 转发 :FYI: About IANA assignment
shiyang 00338 <young@h3c.com> Mon, 25 January 2010 13:31 UTC
Return-Path: <capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 763633A69CF for <ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Jan 2010 05:31:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.415
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.415 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, CN_BODY_35=0.339, GB_I_LETTER=-2, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_SUB_ENC_GB2312=1.345]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zzfUFu3OMFgw for <ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Jan 2010 05:31:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists.tigertech.net (lists.tigertech.net [64.62.209.34]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C90D53A69C2 for <capwap-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Jan 2010 05:31:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zoidberg.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zoidberg.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39883E18110 for <capwap-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Jan 2010 05:31:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx3.tigertech.net (morbo.tigertech.net [67.131.251.53]) by lists.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DE49E240E1 for <capwap@lists.tigertech.net>; Mon, 25 Jan 2010 05:31:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx3.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C41D19E5CE for <capwap@frascone.com>; Mon, 25 Jan 2010 05:31:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at morbo.tigertech.net
Received: from mx3.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx3.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48F2F19E5DC for <capwap@frascone.com>; Mon, 25 Jan 2010 05:31:32 -0800 (PST)
X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean
X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (High) (P0); Whitelisted TTSSA (young@h3c.com whitelisted)
Received: from huawei-3com.com (unknown [60.191.123.50]) by mx3.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for <capwap@frascone.com>; Mon, 25 Jan 2010 05:31:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei-3com.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by h3cml01-in.huawei-3com.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.25 (built Mar 3 2004)) with ESMTP id <0KWT00CKV1KIAK@h3cml01-in.huawei-3com.com> for capwap@frascone.com; Mon, 25 Jan 2010 21:31:31 +0800 (CST)
Received: from huawei-3com.com ([172.25.15.135]) by h3cml01-in.huawei-3com.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.25 (built Mar 3 2004)) with ESMTP id <0KWT00G9O1KIDD@h3cml01-in.huawei-3com.com> for capwap@frascone.com; Mon, 25 Jan 2010 21:31:30 +0800 (CST)
Received: from [172.25.15.126] (Forwarded-For: [125.33.154.88]) by h3cmc02-in.huawei-3com.com (mshttpd); Mon, 25 Jan 2010 21:31:30 +0800
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 21:31:30 +0800
From: shiyang 00338 <young@h3c.com>
To: capwap@frascone.com
Message-id: <3936ac398df8.398df83936ac@huawei-3com.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: iPlanet Messenger Express 5.2 HotFix 1.25 (built Mar 3 2004)
Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Boundary_(ID_ISjRPCc0edhAS1SqWwiPpQ)"
Content-language: zh-CN
X-Accept-Language: zh-CN
Priority: normal
Subject: [Capwap] 转发 :FYI: About IANA assignment
X-BeenThere: capwap@frascone.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: A list for CAPWAP technical discussions <capwap.frascone.com>
List-Post: <mailto:capwap@frascone.com>
X-Tigertech-Mailman-Hint: 636170776170
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap>, <mailto:capwap-request@frascone.com?subject=subscribe>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap>, <mailto:capwap-request@frascone.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap>
List-Help: <mailto:capwap-request@frascone.com?subject=help>
Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com
--- Begin Message ---Dear Dan: Last week, Amanda asked me to give ifType labels without hyphens. I gave reply as followed (under ////) soon and CC to capwap@frascone, now it is seemed the msg has not been received by the mailing list. Wish Amanda already got it. Regards Richard ////////////////////////// Hi, Amanda: Thanks for your reminder. The ifType labels without hyphens would be: 1) "name" field for "WLAN BSS Interface" is: capwapDot11Bss 2) "name" field for " WLAN Profile Interface" is: capwapDot11Profile 3) "name" field for " WTP Virtual Radio Interface" is:capwapWtpVirtualRadio Regards Richard ----- ÔÓʼþ ----- ´Ó: Amanda Baber <amanda.baber@icann.org> ÈÕÆÚ: ÐÇÆÚÁù, Ò»Ô 23ÈÕ, 2010 ÉÏÎç4:05 Ö÷Ìâ: Re: About IANA assignment > Hi, > > Can you give us ifType labels without hyphens? Section 7.1.1 of > RFC 2578 has > the relevant guidelines: > > "A label for a named-number enumeration must consist of one > or more letters or digits, up to a maximum of 64 characters, and the > initial character must be a lower-case letter. (However, labels > longer than 32 characters are not recommended.) Note that hyphens > are not allowed by this specification (except for use by information > modules converted from SMIv1 which did allow hyphens)." > > Thanks, > > Amanda Baber > IANA ´Ó: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com> ÈÕÆÚ: ÐÇÆÚÒ», Ò»Ô 25ÈÕ, 2010 ÏÂÎç8:41 Ö÷Ìâ: RE: [Capwap] About IANA assignment > Richard's proposals seem fine to me. If agreed by the WG I > suggest that you forward the responses to IANA. > > Dan > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: young [young@h3c.com] > > Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 8:58 AM > > To: capwap@frascone.com > > Cc: 'Yong Zhang'; iesg@ietf.org > > Subject: [Capwap] About IANA assignment > > > > Hi, All: > > > > According the IANA opinions: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/draft-ietf-capwap-802do > > t11-mib/commen > > t/105019/ > > > > The editors give the following comments: > > For [RFC-capwap-802dot11-mib] > > 1) "WLAN BSS Interface" needs assignment instead of "WTP > > Virtual Radio Interface" > > 2) Suggest "name" field for "WLAN BSS Interface" is: capwap-dot11Bss > > 3) Suggest "name" field for " WLAN Profile Interface" is: > > capwap-dot11Profile > > > > For [RFC- draft-ietf-capwap-base-mib-08] > > 1) It needs ifType assignment for the WTP Virtual Radio Interface. > > 2) Suggest "name" field for " WTP Virtual Radio Interface" is: > > capwap-virtualRadio. If IANA think the "name" is a bit long, > > suggest to use: capwap-vRadio. > > > > > > Action #2: > > Upon approval of this document, IANA will assign the following > > mib-2 numbers at > > http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers > > > > Decimal Name Description Reference > > ------- | ------------ | ------------------------------- | ------ > --- > > TDB3 | capwapDot11MIB | Control And Provisioning of Wireless > > Access Points | > > [RFC-capwap-802dot11-mib-05] > > [Richard} I am ok but not very sure. Dan please check it too, > thanks.> > > For RFC- draft-ietf-capwap-base-mib-08, it also needs mib-2 number > > assignment. > > > > TO WG, we suggest: > > Suppose in future, CAPWAP WG has more wireless binding MIBs, > > it would follow > > similar Rules like Dot11 binding. > > Suppose we have 802.16 binding MIB which needs ifType > > assignment, it could > > use "name" like capwap-dot16xxx. > > Any way, the interface name should indicate the capwap and a > specific> wireless binding. > > > > Regards > > Richard > > > > -----ÓʼþÔ¼þ----- > > ·¢¼þÈË: capwap-request@frascone.com [capwap-request@frascone.com] > > ·¢ËÍʱ¼ä: 2010Äê1ÔÂ21ÈÕ 19:18 > > ÊÕ¼þÈË: capwap@frascone.com > > Ö÷Ìâ: Capwap Digest, Vol 50, Issue 10 > > > > Send Capwap mailing list submissions to > > capwap@frascone.com > > > > 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 > > capwap-request@frascone.com > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > capwap-owner@frascone.com > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of Capwap digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. FW: [IANA #293014] Evaluation: > > draft-ietf-capwap-802dot11-mib-06.txt toInformational RFC > > (Romascanu, Dan (Dan)) > > 2. FW: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-capwap-base-mib (Romascanu, Dan (Dan)) > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 20:12:39 +0100 > > From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com> > > Subject: [Capwap] FW: [IANA #293014] Evaluation: > > draft-ietf-capwap-802dot11-mib-06.txt toInformational RFC > > To: <capwap@frascone.com> > > Message-ID: > > > > <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A0401E0B6B6@307622ANEX5.global.a > > vaya.com> > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > Editors, > > > > Please address the IANA comments. > > > > No new version, please - just a proposal how to address the > problem or > > explanation why this is not a problem. > > > > Thanks and Regards, > > > > Dan > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: iesg-bounces@ietf.org [iesg-bounces@ietf.org] On > > Behalf Of > > Amanda Baber via RT > > Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 9:09 PM > > Cc: iesg@ietf.org > > Subject: [IANA #293014] Evaluation: > > draft-ietf-capwap-802dot11-mib-06.txt toInformational RFC > > > > IESG: > > > > IANA NOT OK. Comments in tracker > > IANA Actions - YES > > > > We still need names/descriptors (e.g., "capwapDot11MIB") for the new > > ifType assignments. > > > > Thank you, > > > > Amanda Baber > > (On behalf of IANA) > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 2 > > Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 11:10:38 +0100 > > From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com> > > Subject: [Capwap] FW: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-capwap-base-mib > > To: "young" <young@h3c.com> > > Cc: capwap@frascone.com, Yong Zhang <yozhang@gmail.com> > > Message-ID: > > > > <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A0401E94EF6@307622ANEX5.global.a > > vaya.com> > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > Richard, > > > > Please address the issues raised by Pasi in his DISCUSS. > > > > Thanks and Regards, > > > > Dan > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: iesg-bounces@ietf.org [iesg-bounces@ietf.org] On > > Behalf Of > > Pasi Eronen > > Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 12:07 PM > > To: iesg@ietf.org > > Cc: capwap-chairs@tools.ietf.org; > > draft-ietf-capwap-base-mib@tools.ietf.org > > Subject: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-capwap-base-mib > > > > Discuss: > > I have reviewed draft-ietf-capwap-base-mib-08, and have > > couple of small > > questions that I'd like to discuss before recommending approval > of the > > document: > > > > - The MIB provides a writable object for switching between X.509 > certs> and PSK authentication for DTLS. Since the MIB can't > > actually configure > > the PSK (or X.509 certificate and corresponding private key, for > that> matter), is this object actually useful? > > > > - It seems capwapBaseWtpState indicates the AC's CAPWAP FSM > state for > > each WTP, not the WTP's FSM? (which, at any single point of > time, be > > slighly different) > > > > - Section 9.1/9.2: it looks like these should be new CAPWAP Message > > Element Types, not Vendor Specific Payloads? (and the current text > > doesn't say what vendor ID would be used) > > > > - Why is "dns" allowed as capwapBaseWtpStateWtpIpAddressType? > (the AC > > obviously sees the IP address the WTP's connection comes from, > but not > > the DNS name?) > > > > - capwapBaseWtpStateWtpIpAddressType: is this the IP address > > of the WTP > > as seen by the AC, or as sent in the "CAPWAP Local IPv4/6 Address" > > message element? > > > > - A question: Did the WG consider including NAT-related information > > CapwapBaseWtpStateEntry? For example, whether NAT was > > detected, and what > > the other address (depending on the question above) was? > > > > - capwapBaseMacAclId: this seems to limit the number of ACL > entries to > > 255 -- why? (although RFC 5415 doesn't support sending more > > than 255 ACL > > entries in a single "Add MAC ACL Entry" message element, the AC > could> send more than one of those) > > > > - capwapBaseWtpProfileWtpStaticIpType: How would the "ipv4z" > type be > > used by the CAPWAP protocol? (it doesn't seem to use the zone > index in > > any way) > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > 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 50, Issue 10 > > ************************************** > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: > > http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap > > > > Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap > > >--- End Message ---
_________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit: http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap
- [Capwap] 转发 :FYI: About IANA assignment shiyang 00338