RE: draft-ietf-capwap-objectives-04.txt [Gen-art] This week's big agenda

>john.loughney@nokia.com wrote:
>> By the way, this seems like a no-obj to me.  I don't think 
>it would be 
>> useful to nit-pick it.
>
>I no-obbed but did pick a few nits in the tracker (there are a 
>few things I find curious, but non-blocking).

I had been following the wg earlier, and one thing to note is:

> >   Protocol Requirement:
> >
> >   Any WTP or WLAN controller vendor or any person MUST be able to
> >   implement the CAPWAP protocol from the specification itself and by
> >   that it is required that all such implementations do interoperate.
>
> Since this is a basic requirement of all IETF standards, why is it
listed?

Some WG participants wanted to allow proprietary CAPWAP protocols, but
allow
them to somehow functionally equivalent.  I know this doesn't, then
provide for
a standard solution, but the above text had to be added to ensure that 
everyone understood that the WG was going to make a fully standardized
and interoperable solution.

John

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art