Re: [OPSAWG] Call for adoption, two capwap-related documents

[Margaret Wasserman <[e-mail]>]

I have no objection to this work being adopted by the OPS area working group.  I do think that it is important for CAPWAP to be updated/extended for IEEE 802.1n, and I think that these drafts are a good starting point.  Both drafts will need some work before they are ready for publication, though.

For example, both of these drafts have empty IANA Considerations sections, and that isn't right in either case.    I'm the IANA Expert Reviewer for CAPWAP allocations, so I'd like to make sure we properly understand what allocations are being requested by these documents.  I have discussed the IANA items below that I think will need to be allocated by these documents.  Am I missing anything?

On Apr 11, 2013, at 10:36 AM, Melinda Shore <[e-mail]> wrote:
> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-shao-opsawg-capwap-hybridmac-00.txt

This document needs to allocate another WTP Mac Type for the Hybrid MAC, but the document doesn't seem to mention the WTP MAC Type at all.  It don't see how the Hybrid MAC Type can be used without assigning a WTP Mac Type value.  The registry for this value is described in section 15.26 of the base CAPWAP spec.

> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-chen-opsawg-capwap-extension-00.txt

This document requests the allocation of several new Element IDs.  I think that these would be allocated from the CAPWAP Message Element Type registry, as defined in section 15.7 of the CAPAP base spec (RFC 5415).  There are a couple of types that include values in the spec (133 and 134, specifically).  Those values have not been allocated (to my knowledge) and should be removed from the specification until they have been requested and allocated by IANA.

I'd be happy to work with the authors to properly document these allocations, so that they can request the allocations from IANA.  I think that can happen after these drafts are adopted by the WG, though.

Margaret