Subject: [Capwap] Agenda for IETF67

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 08:21:07 -0500

Hi All,

The WG chairs have put together the attached agenda for the CAPWAP  
meeting at IETF67 in San Diego.

This agenda also contains a list of all of the currently open CAPWAP  
issues, grouped into several groups based on their current status and  
priority.  Please review the list carefully and let us know if you  
notice an errors or omissions.

IMPORTANT:  If you plan to attend this meeting, please read this  
(long) agenda carefully.  It contains important information regarding  
how to prepare for a face-to-face discussion of several technical  
topics that have recently been
raised/discussed on the WG mailing list.  If people come to the  
meeting well-prepared, we may be able to reach consensus on several  
of these issues during the meeting (to be confirmed on the mailing  
list, of course).

Please let us know if you have any comments or suggestions about the  
agenda or the grouping/summary of open issues.

NOTE:  This thread should not be used as a catch-all for technical  
discussion of the open issues.  If you want to make technical  
comments regarding any of the open issues, please start a new thread  
and include the issue number in your subject line.  Thank you.

Dorothy Gellert, Mahalingam Mani & Margaret Wasserman
CAPWAP WG Co-Chairs

--------

IETF 67 CAPWAP WG Meeting
Monday, November 6, 2006
1520-1720, Harbor Island III
========================

AGENDA:
- Agenda Bashing, Administrivia -- Chairs (5 min)

- Charter Milestone/Status Review -- Chairs (10 min)
   http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/capwap-charter.html

- CAPWAP MIB Update -- Chairs (2 min)
   Should we have two MIBs to match document split?
   Goals: Call for volunteers and useful examples
   (no document available)

- CAPWAP Threat Analysis -- Charles Clancey/Scott Kelly (30 min)
   http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kelly-capwap-threat- 
analysis-00.txt
   Goal:  Understand threats and potential impacts on CAPWAP specs
   Question:  Adopt as a WG work item?

- CAPWAP Protocol Updates  -- Dorothy Stanley (10 min)
   http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-capwap-protocol- 
binding-ieee80211-00.txt
   http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-capwap-protocol- 
specification-03.txt
   Goal:  Understand document split and review major resolved issues

- CAPWAP Protocol Open Issues -- Chairs/Editors (60 min)
   Structured discussion of unresolved issues from tracker:
     #1: How to differentiate between encrypted and unencrypted packets?
     #2: What RSC value should AC use when the WTP does encryption?
     #3: How does DTLS establishment interact with CAPWAP start-up?
     #4: How/if to handle QoS across DTLS-encrypted CAPWAP connections?
     #5: Proposed CAPWAP header changes
     (and, if time allows...)
     #6: Firmware upgrade/image data issues
     #7: Configuration error handling
   Note: More information on each topic is included below in the
   section labled "GROUPING OF CAPWAP ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION.")
   Goal:  Discuss and close issues where possible (subject to review on
   mailing list)

PREPARATION:
In order to have a fruitful discussion on these topics that does
not repeat all of the discussion on the mailing list, please
read the information below and familiarize yourself with recent
mailing list discussions before the meeting.  Thank you!!

GROUPING OF CAPWAP ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION:

Note:
     Further detail about each issue, including the message that
     opened each issue can be found in the issue tracker at:
     http://www.capwap.org/cgi-bin/roundup/CAPWAP/

     The CAPWAP mailing list archives can be found at:
     http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap/

TOPIC #1: How to differentiate between encrypted and unencrypted  
packets?

     Related Issues:
     89  How does the AC differentiate Discovery Request/Client Hello
     137 Proposal for CAPWAP packet format
     217 What is frame format when WTP encrypts/decrypts
     221	No way to signal DTLS for data plane
     224 Control channel packet classification
     227 Need Shim Header to indicate crypto property of packet

     Issue Summary:
     The CAPWAP spec does not specify how implementations should
     differentiate between unencrypted and DTLS-encrypted packets
     on either the control or data ports.

     Open proposals:
     (1) Use additional ports, up to four for all combinations of
	control/data, encrypted/unencrypted.
     (2) Insert a short (4 byte?) CAPWAP MUX header after the UDP
	header to indicate type of packet enclosed (unencrypted,
	DTLS encrypted, etc.)

     Default Action:  N/A, some solution is needed.

     Goal: Reach consensus on a solution.

TOPIC #2: What RSC value should AC use when the WTP does encryption?

     Related Issues:
     43 IEEE 802.11i Considerations

     Discussion Summary:
     When the WTP does encryption and the AC does authentication, the
     AC does not have the correct RSC value to generate the third
     message of the IEEE 802.11i 4-way handshake.

     Open Proposals:
     (1) Pass a partial third message to the WTP, so that the WTP
	can calculate the MIC and send the completed message.
     (2) Add a mechanism for the AC to get the RSC from the WTP.
     (3) Indicate that the AC should use an RSC of 0, unless it
	is aware of a better value.

     Default Action: N/A, some solution is needed.

     Goal: Reach consensus on a solution.

TOPIC #3: How does DTLS establishment interact with CAPWAP start-up?

     Related Issues:
     226 Transition to join state

     Discussion Summary:
     There has been discussion of adding a new state to the state
     machine between the "Discover"/"Idle" and "Join" states called
     "DTLS Establishment".  This state would delay transition to the
     "Join" state until the DTLS session has been fully established.

     Active Proposals:
     There is a single proposal with some additions/corrections
     described in the issue tracker.

     Default State:  N/A, some solution is needed.

     Goal: Reach consensus on a solution.

TOPIC #4: How/if to handle QoS across DTLS-encrypted CAPWAP connections?

     Related Issues:
     196 Issues with update mobile QoS
     212 References to "QoS field" is invalid
     214 Should 802.1X frames be prioritized?

     Discussion Summary:
     There has been some discussion of whether we need to have per-QoS
     DTLS sessions or another way to handle QoS across the encrypted
     CAPWAP link.

     Default Action: None, do not add special QoS handling.

     Goal:  Understand the issue, determine if solution is needed.

TOPIC #5: Proposed CAPWAP header changes

     Related Issues:
     127 Usage of the Session ID field
     137 Proposal for CAPWAP packet format
     146 Updated proposal for packet formats
     168 Session is not required

     Discussion Summary:
     A proposal was made (and later updated) to change the CAPWAP
     packet formats.  Part of the proposal was covered above.  There
     has been no recent discussion of the other parts of the proposal
     on the mailing list.  There was also a proposal to add a session
     ID field to the CAPWAP header, and a later statement that a
     Session ID was not required due to the use of DTLS.

     Default Action:  None, headers remain unchanged.

     Goal:  Determine whether or not there is consensus that the
     headers need to be changed and, if so, in what ways.

TOPIC #6: Firmware upgrade/image data issues

     Related Issues:
     126 Wrong place for "Image data" state
     192 Problems with image data request and response
     200 Trickle firmware download

     Discussion Summary:
     Various issues in this area have been discussed on the list.
     There seems to be agreement that some state machine updates are
     needed, but perhaps not on the specifics and/or extent of the
     required changes.

     Default Action:  None, firmware upgrade text  remains as-is.

     Goal: Understand the issues in this area and decide what problems
     with the firmware upgrade process  need to be fixed, if any.

TOPIC #7: Configuration error handling

     Related Issues:
     108 Configuration Failure Processing chatting
     175 WTP Board Data belongs in the Join, not configure
     181 Configuration Status is broken
     190 Issues with configuration update response

     Discussion Summary:
     There has been some discussion on the list indicating that our
     configuration error handlng may be inadequate.  It is not clear
     that we have a shared understanding of what level of error handling
     is required, though.

     Default Action:  None, configuration responses remain as-is.

     Goal: Understand the issues around configuration error handling
     and determine what problems in this area need to be fixed, if any.

ISSUES FOR MAILING LIST

These issues probably represent real problems with the specs, but
our discussions have not advanced to the point were it would be useful
to discuss these issues in a face-to-face setting.  In some cases,
these issues may not be well-understood by the group and/or there are
no specific proposals to address them.  These issues should be
further explored/discussed on the mailing list.  Specific proposals
should be made and considered to address them.

114 How does CAPWAP know there's a NAT?
140 Use of VLAN name in Add Mobile Station (section 4.4.8)
173 What if all of the message elements do not fit within a single frame
219 Insufficient description of WTPs during discovery

MINOR/EDITORIAL ISSUES:

These issues are well-enough understood and simple enough that they
probably wouldn't benefit from face-to-face discussion by the CAPWAP
WG.  The editors should propose solutions on the mailing list.

122 Editorial Issues in CAPWAP-01
144 Need length value for Vendor-specific payload
149 IPv6 Multicast address for Discover
152 Which message elements can be repeated?
153 Can "additional" message elements be added to a message?
177 WTP Reboot Statistics belongs in the Join
187 AC Timestamp doesn't belong in the configuration
191 Clear Config Request. this operation has several problems
194 Handling duplicate IPV4 addresses
203 CAPWAP headers must be 4 byte aligned
211 References to "Clear Text" invalid
216 'M' bit required in AC->WTP traffic to support 802.3 frame encap
218 Static IP Address message element is a MUST
222 Need clarity on how managment frames are carried
223 Description of RID field is unclear

NON-ACTIONABLE ISSUES:

These issues do not contain enough information to be actionable.  A
message will be sent to the mailing list indicating that these issues
will be closed unless further information and/or specific proposals
for improvement are provided.

107 Broadcast Probe Mode and Supress SSID Configuration
159 Operations should have listed in which states they are applicable
183 Report Timer needs to be in section 4.5 or 11
188 Add MAC ACL Entry issue

_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap

Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap