> From: Melinda Shore [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 1:16 PM > > > > Thanks for your kind comments, > > for 1) your comments is right, same as other comment as well, we will > > update capwap-extension to standard track other than informational > > document once submit to 00 WG document if it is adopted. Since it is > > only about 11n part other than update original 5416document, so we > > didn't use "bis". [WEG] Initially I was under the impression that as an ops group, OpsAWG was like many others in that it wasn't chartered to do protocol work. As a result, I wasn't sure how this fit into the charter of OpsAWG other than being home for orphaned work from concluded WGs (since CAPWAP was an OpsArea WG). So I looked at the charter, and found "Maintenance and small scale extensions of documents that were developed in working groups that have concluded (e.g. MIB modules)." I guess someone needs to decide if this is truly considered a small-scale extension and enough of the former CAPWAP participants are involved in OpsAWG such that we get the right level of review. If the answer to those questions is yes, I'd be fine with adopting this one.
> > for 2) RFC 5415 has recommended Split and Local, capwap-hybrid-mac is > > not trying to obsolete them, but define a new model in the middle, it > > does not write the normaltive text, so it won't belongs to the scope > > of standard. [WEG] I don't really see the lack of normative text as a particularly convincing argument on this one. The draft asserts that a lack of definition in the standard is leading to interoperability problems due to differences in vendor-specific implementation choices, and proposes a solution. It doesn't have to obsolete the old one, but I think that it is still an update to the standard, and requires normative text to define what behaviors MUST or SHOULD be followed to improve interoperability over the current standard, and possibly to define how backwards compatibility might work. Otherwise, the same comments apply here as to whether this is the correct WG for this draft. Hope that helps to clarify Wes George This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout. _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
