Hi Wes, Yes, as we presented during the last two times IETF meeting, WG and AD recommended that this is a small revision, we need not to reopen the capwap working group, OPSAWG is the right place to document here.
If we look at two models in previous RFC, it doesn't say "Must" and "Should", I think we also don't need to add this two words in this document in order to align with previous RFC for the readers, if people are really recommending standard track, then probably we can check it again during the WG LC. thanks a lot -Hui 2013/5/1 Melinda Shore <[email protected]> > On 4/30/13 10:07 AM, George, Wes wrote: > > 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. > > Well, I think the "someone" is us as a group. Taking off > my chair hat, I think that this is pretty clearly not a > major revision of capwap and would not merit a 'bis' > document. There's also been a considerable amount of > outreach to former capwap participants and to the IEEE > 802.11n community, which may have not been visible to > working group participants. > > Melinda > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg >
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
