Subject: RE: [Capwap] So many architectures, so little time... - take 2

From: "Randy Chou" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 17:04:06 -0700

I think most consumers not only want the first requirement, but more
specifically want to be able to purchase the most inexpensive AP from
any vendor without sacrificing security.  If agreeable, I would suggest
making that one of the goals of the charter.

Regards,

--
Randy 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Mani, Mahalingam (Mahalingam)
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 4:24 PM
To: James Kempf; Shehzad Merchant; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; Inderpreet Singh
Subject: RE: [Capwap] So many architectures, so little time... - take 2

This in itself justifies the need to be able to seek idiosyncracies and
commonalities of "customer" pressure-points and later sit back to
prioritize them.

Of the two requirements the more thought about is the first (and more of
the core challenge). However,...

-----Original Message-----
From: James Kempf [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 3:29 PM
To: Shehzad Merchant; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; Mani, Mahalingam (Mahalingam);
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; Inderpreet Singh
Subject: Re: [Capwap] So many architectures, so little time... - take 2

As a potential customer, let me put it concretely. I want to be able to
buy my access points from Vendor X and my switch from Vendor Y and plug
the two together and have them work without any configuration. Also, I'd
like to be able to buy switches from Vendor Y and Vendor Z and be able
to plug them

[Mani, Mahalingam (Mahalingam)] 
[Mani, Mahalingam (Mahalingam)] the latter is a new, good and
interesting requirement to consider; whether it goes into desirable or
mandatory bucket remains to be seen.

Also - whether it is a coexistence requirement or interoperability
requirement is to be analyzed as well.

-mani

into my network at various places and have them interoperate.

            jak

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Shehzad Merchant" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; "Inderpreet Singh"
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 3:19 PM
Subject: RE: [Capwap] So many architectures, so little time... - take 2

> I think the implementation variations even with the split MAC may
cover a
> broad spectrum. As such its important to clearly articulate what
aspects
of
> interoperability we are targetting. Is it truly just
control/management or
> is it interoperability between disparate implementations of the split
MAC,
> i.e. mix and match operation of WTP and ACs of all variants within
this
> category.
>
> I suspect for the latter we may have to arrive at some consensus on
what
> particular implementations we are targeting interoperability for. If
so,
> ultimately this problem statement could become part of the charter.
>
> -Shehzad
>
[Mani, Mahalingam (Mahalingam)] [...]

_______________________________________________
Capwap mailing list
[email-masked] http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap
_______________________________________________
Capwap mailing list
[email-masked]
http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap

---

From: Matt Holdrege <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2004 14:53:52 +0200

Pricing should not be an issue in any IETF charter. Rather efficiency and 
performance are the major issues. It's up to manufacturers to set their 
prices.

-Matt

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 08:32:59 -0700

And interoperability.

            jak