Hi, I understand the need and I support discussing this work in OPSAWG.
This being said - the change proposed by this document looks like a significant addition to the CAPWAP architecture. I personally need to do more reading to understand how it fits into the current architecture, how it impacts existing WTPs and ARs, and whether there is a need for a migration or coexistence plans in existing deployments of CAPWAP (if such deployments exist). Function of the responses this may or may not represent more the usual 'incremental development' we do in OPSAWG. I would like to hear also the opinions of IEEE 802.11 experts and of folks who were involved in the original CAPWAP work ( I copied Dorothy and Mani, there are more) Thanks and Regards, Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: OPSAWG [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Melinda > Shore > Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 8:44 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Fwd: Alternate Tunnel Encapsulation for Data Frames > in CAPWAP > > We have not yet put out a call for adoption. At this point we're trying to > get a > handle on relevance and quality. To that end, discussion is very useful, > statements of support less so. > > 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
