Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP DT teleconference minutes (05/27/04)

From: "Yang, Lily L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 11:28:14 -0700

May 27, 2004 8-9am PST

Attendees (8): Lily, Petros, Emek, Victor, Partha, Inderpreet, Jim, Peyush

The objective of this teleconference was to formulate a working plan to revise the CAPWAP Taxonomy Draft to v03 in the next few weeks. Potentially this could be the version that the DT asks for the WG last call on. The two main work items for v03 are:

1)      Address comments received on v02 so far, including comments from IEEE CAPWAP Ad Hoc Committee (AHC) and others made via IETF CAPWAP mailing list.

2)      Solicit more input from mesh vendors to help us revise the Distributed Architecture section better than what we currently have, but it is expected that the Distributed Architecture Section would not treated as thoroughly as the Centralized Architecture Section. 

Plan to work on item #1 is:

1)      Use the spread sheet from IEEE to collect and track other comments. Add new columns to the spread sheet so that resolutions or clarification/feedback can be documented as well.

2)      A primary owner is designated from the DT for each comment so that he/she can take responsibility to understand the issue, clarify with the comment provider if necessary, and provide recommendation to the DT and WG on how to address the comment. When in doubt, the owner should always bring up the issue with the DT and WG in general for discussion.

3)      The DT and WG would be given a chance to go over the recommendations before the final resolutions are accepted and incorporated into the draft.

Plan to work on item #2 is to first encourage and collect more input from mesh vendors on the topic in the next 1-2 weeks. Some vendors already agreed (verbally and informally) to do that.

Schedule for v03: need to be discussed by the DT, co-chairs, and the WG.

In this conference, we also went over some of the more significant comments from IEEE Ad Hoc Committee:

1)      Comments were made that we need to better describe the functional interface between AC and WTP in each architecture. The problem is that we don't have enough raw data to do that, given the fact that each vendor implements that interface with its proprietary technology. However, this problem underlines the need for open standard. It is agreed that we should explicitly state the proprietary nature of such interface in the reality and the difficulty of describing it in details.

2)      Comments were made that real-time or non-real-time is not well defined anywhere, which is true. We should state the reality clearly and honestly.

3)      Comments were made about how much advantages and disadvantages should be pointed out for each architecture variant. The group feels that Taxonomy document should stay clear of subjective judgments, but analysis of the technical implications of each architecture is within the realm of this document.

4)      Comments were made regarding the WME/11e entry in the matrix - it is not clear what the entry tries to address -- whether it should be what (WME or 11e or both) gets implemented or where (AC or WTP or both) it gets implemented. The group aggress that it should be the later, not the former, and if necessary, contributing vendors should be contacted to clarify this and gather new data for this.

5)      Security section: questions were raised whether we should have more detailed security section. However, it is agreed that we can only go as far as the vendor input allow us to go. So Inderpreet agrees to take another look at the vendor inputs for security considerations.

6)      Comments were also made regarding the distributed architecture section and mesh, esp. current development in IEEE .11s group (ESS Mesh). We agree to expand a bit more on that section, but also acknowledge the difficulty without enough vendor input.

7)      Question was raised regarding Section 4.7 and its relevance to the document. The group feels that it is indeed important and maybe just some clarification is needed.

WE didn't have enough time to discuss the schedule, so we agree to take this to the DT mailing list first and get a sense from the DT on when we can accomplish work item #1 and #2. I will do that separately.

Thanks,

Lily