I agreed with what Dan said here, it is sad that the protocol invented by IETF hasn't been widely supported before.
Here I just want to mention that quite recently, SP wifi (Carrier grade wifi) has re-rised up again in WBA/WFA/IEEE. and today there are three chiense operators are and planning to deploy CAPWAP solution which is IETF standard protocol, China Mobile has more than 4 million APs deployed, this number will continue to grow, almost all of them are based on capwap, China Telecom an China Unicom also has more than millions AP using capwap. This work has also got two other quite large opeartor's support. This could prove IETF's work is standard based and benefit for the Internet. Time is very urgent to support standard work other than propritary solution. I have seen many vendors who is implementing capwap showing their support in the ML. As Dan's talk here, we respect Dorothy's pioneer work, that's the reason why we follow her advice and have further talk with her about EAP's draft to make better understanding, not rush for the immeidately adoption, we will continue work with her about this document. Thanks a lot for your advice. Best regards, -Hui 2013/5/1 Romascanu, Dan (Dan) <[email protected]> > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > > Of Melinda Shore > > Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 11:01 PM > > To: George, Wes > > Cc: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Call for adoption, two capwap-related documents > > > > 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 > > > > [[DR]] All the above is correct. I also believe that the type of > extensions defined by the proposed work fits within the charter of OPSAWG, > with sufficient support. And here is the issue - and to explain my concern > I need to share some of my experience from the time I was the shepherding > AD for CAPWAP. This WG started in big rooms at the BOF phase, continued in > reasonably-sized rooms when the work started, and ended in small rooms, > with a handful of active participants in the editing of the latest > documents. Out of the people expressing interest to do or supporting this > new work there is I saw (and I may have missed messages) only one of the > co-authors of RFC 5415 (Dorothy Stanley - who is also the liaison of IEEE > 802.11 to the IETF). In order to avoid the situation of having a work > approved but not enough hands and eyes to do it, the chairs need to make > sure that the folks who expressed support are also willing and have the > time to contribute as editors, reviewers and implem > enters. > > Regards, > > Dan > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg >
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
