Re: [Capwap] draft-ietf-capwap-base-mib-08: How about the base MIB draft removes the section 9, and related MIB objects?

Margaret Wasserman <mrw@sandstorm.net> Thu, 28 January 2010 21:50 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 4C66E3A69A6 for <ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jan 2010 13:50:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_12=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 WxEpCI7hSMOT for <ietfarch-capwap-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jan 2010 13:50:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists.tigertech.net (lists.tigertech.net [64.62.209.34]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03C343A6951 for <capwap-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Jan 2010 13:50:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zoidberg.tigertech.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zoidberg.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0045E1819C for <capwap-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Jan 2010 13:50:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx3.tigertech.net (morbo.tigertech.net [67.131.251.53]) by lists.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E4DFE240C0 for <capwap@lists.tigertech.net>; Thu, 28 Jan 2010 13:50:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx3.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34D2119ECC5 for <capwap@frascone.com>; Thu, 28 Jan 2010 13:50:34 -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 7AFF719ECC6 for <capwap@frascone.com>; Thu, 28 Jan 2010 13:50:33 -0800 (PST)
X-TigerTech-Content-Filter: Clean
X-TigerTech-Spam-Status: Level 0 (High) (P0); Whitelisted TTSSA (mrw@sandstorm.net whitelisted)
Received: from sirocco.sandstorm.net (sirocco.sandstorm.net [69.33.111.75]) by mx3.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP for <capwap@frascone.com>; Thu, 28 Jan 2010 13:50:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lilac.sandstorm.net (ip-69-33-111-74.bos.megapath.net [69.33.111.74]) (authenticated bits=0) by sirocco.sandstorm.net (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o0SLoSWR053046 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 28 Jan 2010 16:50:29 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mrw@sandstorm.net)
From: Margaret Wasserman <mrw@sandstorm.net>
To: young <young@h3c.com>
In-Reply-To: <009601ca9f28$b797d650$7a449a0a@h3c.huawei3com.com>
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
References: <009601ca9f28$b797d650$7a449a0a@h3c.huawei3com.com>
Message-Id: <A18857B3-4212-419A-82F6-BB938164D66E@sandstorm.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 16:50:28 -0500
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936)
Cc: Pasi.Eronen@nokia.com, capwap@frascone.com, 'Yong Zhang' <yozhang@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Capwap] draft-ietf-capwap-base-mib-08: How about the base MIB draft removes the section 9, and related MIB objects?
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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: capwap-bounces+capwap-archive=lists.ietf.org@frascone.com

<chair hat=off>

As a former CAPWAP implementor (although I no longer work for that  
company), I think it would be fine to remove section 9 from the MIB  
module.  The rest of the MIB would still be useful for managing a  
CAPWAP system.

</chair>

Margaret


On Jan 27, 2010, at 3:14 AM, young wrote:

> Hi, All:
>
> I have one question here. How about the base MIB draft
> (draft-ietf-capwap-base-mib-08) removes the section 9,
> and related MIB objects?
>
> Before I list the changes the editors intend to make,
> I give some background info and reason here.
>
> As you know, in order to make some CAPWAP (RFC5415) variable and
> timer such as DataChannelKeepAlive (MIB draft, section 9)
> viewable by SNMP, the base MIB defines some MIB objects to model them.
> Although RFC5415 already defines lots of CAPWAP message elements for
> protocol variable and timer, some variables such as  
> DataChannelKeepAlive
> are not there.
> To make such variables (like DataChannelKeepAlive) manageable,
> the base MIB has to define some messages in the draft section 9  
> based on
> the Vendor Specific Payload defined in the RFC5415.
> During the IESG review, Pasi raised a question: Which vendor ID would
> be used here? Yes, it is a problem.
>
> But it also gives editors a chance to re-think.
> I think the first version (RFC) of this MIB draft should be tight,
> and should try to reuse existing MIB modules.
> I think the section 9 are important from CAPWAP protocol perspective,
> but from operators perspective, they may not need observe so many
> details of a protocol by MIB module.
> Any way, the other more important (key) info such as WTP, station
> are already fully defined. The core part of MIB is ready.
>
> This MIB draft is informational and not a standard track.
> It has chance to "grow up" when there are more vendors support and  
> more
> feedback from operators. Later, when and if the protocol is revised,  
> some
> new message elements would become part of a revision of RFC5415.
> If such message offer such variable and timer, also such info require
> MIB support, then we would like add them in future.
>
> It should be clarified:
> 1) All the MIB objects (corresponding to Section 9)
> to be removed are optional objects in the current MIB draft.
> 2) Even above MIB objects are removed, the MIB draft still offer lots
> of info of CAPWAP variable and timer. See: CAPWAP Base Parameters  
> Group.
> It has the capwapBaseAcDataCheckTimer which models the element in the
> Section 4.7.4,RFC 5415.
>
> current post:
> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-capwap-base-mib-08.txt
>
> If WG agree to it, editors suggest the following changes would be  
> made.
> 1) Remove the section 9 CAPWAP Message Element Extension. BTW, the  
> section
> is very independent.
> 2) Remove the related MIB objects corresponding to the Message  
> elements
> in the section 9.
> a) In the CapwapBaseWtpTable, it would remove the objects:
> capwapBaseWtpMaxDiscoveries, capwapBaseWtpMaxFailedDTLSSessionRetry,
> capwapBaseWtpMaxRetransmit, capwapBaseWtpDataChannelKeepAliveTimer,
> capwapBaseWtpDataChannelDeadInterval, capwapBaseWtpDiscoveryInterval,
> capwapBaseWtpDTLSSessionDeleteTimer, capwapBaseWtpImageDataStartTimer,
> capwapBaseWtpRetransmitInterval
> b)In the CapwapBaseWtpProfileTable,  it would remove the objects:
> capwapBaseWtpProfileWtpSilentInterval,  
> capwapBaseWtpProfileWtpWaitDTLSTimer
> 3)Since section 8 has a example of above tables, the related text
> need to be updated.
>
> Kindly give your comments, thanks a lot.
>
> 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

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

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