Subject: [Capwap] About IANA assignment

From: young <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 14:57:56 +0800

Hi, All:

According the IANA opinions:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/draft-ietf-capwap-802dot11-mib/commen
t/105019/

The editors give the following comments:
For [RFC-capwap-802dot11-mib]
1) "WLAN BSS Interface" needs assignment instead of "WTP 
Virtual Radio Interface"
2) Suggest "name" field for "WLAN BSS Interface" is: capwap-dot11Bss
3) Suggest "name" field for " WLAN Profile Interface" is:
capwap-dot11Profile

For [RFC- draft-ietf-capwap-base-mib-08]
1) It needs ifType assignment for the WTP Virtual Radio Interface.
2) Suggest "name" field for " WTP Virtual Radio Interface" is:
capwap-virtualRadio. If IANA think the "name" is a bit long, 
suggest to use: capwap-vRadio.

Action #2:
Upon approval of this document, IANA will assign the following
mib-2 numbers at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers

Decimal Name Description Reference
------- | ------------ | ------------------------------- | ---------
TDB3 | capwapDot11MIB | Control And Provisioning of Wireless Access Points |
[RFC-capwap-802dot11-mib-05]
[Richard} I am ok but not very sure. Dan please check it too, thanks.

For RFC- draft-ietf-capwap-base-mib-08, it also needs mib-2 number
assignment.

TO WG, we suggest:
Suppose in future, CAPWAP WG has more wireless binding MIBs, it would follow
similar Rules like Dot11 binding. 
Suppose we have 802.16 binding MIB which needs ifType assignment, it could
use "name" like capwap-dot16xxx.
Any way, the interface name should indicate the capwap and a specific
wireless binding.

Regards
Richard

-----邮件原件-----
发件人: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
发送时间: 2010年1月21日 19:18
收件人: [email-masked]
主题: Capwap Digest, Vol 50, Issue 10

Send Capwap mailing list submissions to
	[email-masked]

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	[email-masked]

You can reach the person managing the list at
	[email-masked]

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Capwap digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. FW: [IANA #293014] Evaluation:
      draft-ietf-capwap-802dot11-mib-06.txt toInformational RFC
      (Romascanu, Dan (Dan))
   2. FW: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-capwap-base-mib (Romascanu, Dan (Dan))

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 20:12:39 +0100
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [Capwap] FW: [IANA #293014] Evaluation:
	draft-ietf-capwap-802dot11-mib-06.txt toInformational RFC
To: <[email-masked]>
Message-ID:
	
<[email-masked]>
	
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"

 Editors,

Please address the IANA comments.

No new version, please - just a proposal how to address the problem or
explanation why this is not a problem. 

Thanks and Regards,

Dan

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Amanda Baber via RT
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 9:09 PM
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [IANA #293014] Evaluation:
draft-ietf-capwap-802dot11-mib-06.txt toInformational RFC 

IESG:

IANA NOT OK.  Comments in tracker
IANA Actions - YES

We still need names/descriptors (e.g., "capwapDot11MIB") for the new
ifType assignments.

Thank you,

Amanda Baber
(On behalf of IANA)

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 11:10:38 +0100
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [Capwap] FW: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-capwap-base-mib
To: "young" <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked], Yong Zhang <[email-masked]>
Message-ID:
	
<[email-masked]>
	
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"

Richard,

Please address the issues raised by Pasi in his DISCUSS.

Thanks and Regards,

Dan

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Pasi Eronen
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 12:07 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Subject: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-capwap-base-mib 

Discuss:
I have reviewed draft-ietf-capwap-base-mib-08, and have couple of small
questions that I'd like to discuss before recommending approval of the
document:

- The MIB provides a writable object for switching between X.509 certs
and PSK authentication for DTLS.  Since the MIB can't actually configure
the PSK (or X.509 certificate and corresponding private key, for that
matter), is this object actually useful?

- It seems capwapBaseWtpState indicates the AC's CAPWAP FSM state for
each WTP, not the WTP's FSM? (which, at any single point of time, be
slighly different)

- Section 9.1/9.2: it looks like these should be new CAPWAP Message
Element Types, not Vendor Specific Payloads? (and the current text
doesn't say what vendor ID would be used)

- Why is "dns" allowed as capwapBaseWtpStateWtpIpAddressType?  (the AC
obviously sees the IP address the WTP's connection comes from, but not
the DNS name?)

- capwapBaseWtpStateWtpIpAddressType: is this the IP address of the WTP
as seen by the AC, or as sent in the "CAPWAP Local IPv4/6 Address"
message element?

- A question: Did the WG consider including NAT-related information
CapwapBaseWtpStateEntry? For example, whether NAT was detected, and what
the other address (depending on the question above) was?

- capwapBaseMacAclId: this seems to limit the number of ACL entries to
255 -- why? (although RFC 5415 doesn't support sending more than 255 ACL
entries in a single "Add MAC ACL Entry" message element, the AC could
send more than one of those)

- capwapBaseWtpProfileWtpStaticIpType: How would the "ipv4z" type be
used by the CAPWAP protocol? (it doesn't seem to use the zone index in
any way)

------------------------------

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

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

End of Capwap Digest, Vol 50, Issue 10
**************************************

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

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

---

From: Amanda Baber <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 12:05:14 -0800

Hi,

Can you give us ifType labels without hyphens? Section 7.1.1 of RFC 2578 has
the relevant guidelines:

 "A label for a named-number enumeration must consist of one
 or more letters or digits, up to a maximum of 64 characters, and the
 initial character must be a lower-case letter.  (However, labels
 longer than 32 characters are not recommended.)  Note that hyphens
 are not allowed by this specification (except for use by information
 modules converted from SMIv1 which did allow hyphens)."

Thanks,

Amanda Baber
IANA

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:41:57 +0100

Richard's proposals seem fine to me.  If agreed by the WG I suggest that you forward the responses to IANA. 

Dan

> From: young [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 8:58 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: 'Yong Zhang'; [email-masked]
> Subject: [Capwap] About IANA assignment
> 
> Hi, All:
>