Re: [Capwap] About IANA assignment

["Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[e-mail]>]

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 [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 8:58 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: 'Yong Zhang'; [e-mail]
> 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
> 
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> 发送时间: 2010年1月21日 19:18
> 收件人: [e-mail]
> 主题: Capwap Digest, Vol 50, Issue 10
> 
> 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. 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)" <[e-mail]>
> Subject: [Capwap] FW: [IANA #293014] Evaluation:
> 	draft-ietf-capwap-802dot11-mib-06.txt toInformational RFC
> To: <[e-mail]>
> Message-ID:
> 	
> <[e-mail].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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On 
> Behalf Of
> Amanda Baber via RT
> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 9:09 PM
> Cc: [e-mail]
> 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)" <[e-mail]>
> Subject: [Capwap] FW: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-capwap-base-mib
> To: "young" <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail], Yong Zhang <[e-mail]>
> Message-ID:
> 	
> <[e-mail].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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On 
> Behalf Of
> Pasi Eronen
> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 12:07 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> 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
> 
_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap

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