CAPWAP WG Agenda IETF75, Stockholm, Sweden Thursday, July 30, 2009 0900-1130, Room 300 ========================= AGENDA: - Agenda Bashing & Administrivia (Chairs) - MIB Status Update/Discussion (Richard) http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-capwap-base-mib-05.txt http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-capwap-802dot11-mib-04.txt - Reserved WBID Allocations Discussion (Margaret) Should we reserve a WBID for future extensibility (0)? Should we reserve another for experimental/proprietary use (31)? (Due to A/V problems, we moved the discussion of WBID allocations to before the MIB status.) RESERVED WBID ALLOCATIONS: Margaret Wasserman reviewed mail that she sent to the list about WBID allocations that the group may want to make: (1) To reserve value 31 as an escape to an extended numbering space. (2) To reserve a WBID value for experimental use. There was general agreement in the room to allocate a number for extended WBID numbering. There was some support for doing this in the room and some uncertainty about whether this is needed. The general agreement was the Margaret should write a draft requesting these allocations for WG review. MIB STATUS: Richard presented his slides on the MIB status that summarized all of the issues that have been raised and proposed how to address them. The only substantive issue was the question about whether the MAC Address is mandatory in the CAPWAP Base Spec and could therefore be used as an index in the MIB. The MAC Address requirement level (mandatory or optional) is not specified in RFC 5415. General discussion on the list and in the room indicated that people thought that the MAC Address should be mandatory. There will be a call on the list to determine if there is WG consensus on this point. If so, Dorothy Stanley (one of the RFC 5415 authors) will submit an erratum to the RFC editor, and Dan Romascanu (our AD) will approve it. Richard will update the MIB with all of the changes he proposed on his slides, and we will have a final two-week WG last call. The last call will mention the indexing change and check consensus on that change. If the LC is successful, we will submit the MIBs to the IESG.