CAPWAP Minutes – IETF73 (18 Nov 2008, 17:10-18:10)

CAPWAP Minutes – IETF73 (18 Nov 2008, 17:10-18:10)

Draft status - there was much rejoicing Missing one in the slide that is also moving forward

MIB documents to be discussed today People who read the document: 2

Dan: docs are in pretty good shape. He thinks there are still some detailed open issues he has not yet had a chance to write up. They can be handled as last call comments. I have checked the docs from MIB review perspective.

Dan: the principal problem is that the docs need CAPWAP-expert review.

Chris: how many plan to implement these MIBs? <no response> How many plan to implement the protocol? <no response>

Chris: suggest getting MIB Doctor review next step.

Margaret: I would like to go to WGLC right away. MIB Doctor review later.

Dan: agreed. We don't need MIB Doctor review now; we need technical review.

Does anybody object to starting WGLC? <no objections>

Who would be willing to review this document for protocol sense? <no response>

Margaret: we will need reviews; we will take the request to the mailing list.

Next Steps:

WG will complete charter once MIBs are done.

Looking Forward Slides

How does the WG want to move forward?

Margaret: we could go on hiatus to see if anybody brings new work forward. We have no drafts suggesting further work; we shouldn't charter and then ask for drafts. We should have drafts before we decide to recharter.

Dan Harkins: It is difficult to discuss maintenance, when nobody seems to be implementing, and there are no open issues.

Margaret: there are implementations, and interop testing within epcglobal.

Glen Zorn: I think there are enough issues with handoff in the world for us to search very hard.

DanR: Glen, how would that question fit into CAPWAP?

Glen: I am not speaking specifically of CAPWAP.

Margaret: I do not know handover in this context. Do you mean handover between controllers?

Glen: handover from one AP to another.

Steve Norris: You have finished the base work; let's stay open to address any issues that come up.

Dorothy Stanley: once we complete the docs and mibs, there is very limited work to do until there is pull form the market. I recommend this close, and another group open if there is sufficient demand.

{further discussion}

Dan: if the BOF system is too heavy, we have a mini-BOF process in OPS that only require AD approvals. However, I am not sure the issues raised are OPS area issues, such as handover. It is too early without a proposal I am concerned about the apparent lack of implementation, and 2.0 before we have 1.0 implementations is not good. Finishing the MIB, declaring success, and closing down is not the end of the world.

For maintenance issues, the OPSAWG WG can be used for small maintenance items. Keeping expertise requires showing we have a problem to solve. If there are problems and volunteers, we will find a way to create a WG.

Glen: since there is a wish-list (in the issue-tracker) for 2.0, why do we need to search for work?

Margaret: there are always ideas for things to do. The wish-list (captured in issue-tracker) includes QoS. 802.11 has continued past the 802.11m we declared as our cutoff. Given how sluggish we have gotten, and the lack of drafts, it doesn't make sense to charter.

Glen: I have some things I would like to see.

Margaret: write a draft; the WG will be here for at least another three months. We can accept drafts.

Dan: it is fair to point out that we are at the point of whether we should re-charter , and whether there are drafts that people would like to submit for consideration. The normal thresholds apply for editors, reviewers, etc.