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

john.loughney@nokia.com wrote:
>>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.

Understood, although we do presume that all participants have
read RFC 2026, which requires interoperability...  It's a bit sad
if such reminders are necessary.

     Brian

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