Subject: Re: Informational RFC to be: draft-iino-capwap-wicop-02.txt

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 11:05:46 -0400

The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'Wireless LAN Control 
Protocol (WiCoP)' <draft-iino-capwap-wicop-02.txt> as an Informational 
RFC. 

The IESG would also like the RFC-Editor to review the comments in the 
datatracker 
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=13039&rfc_flag=0) 
related to this document and determine whether or not they merit 
incorporation into the document. Comments may exist in both the ballot 
and the comment log. 

The IESG contact person is Dan Romascanu.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iino-capwap-wicop-02.txt

The process for such documents is described at http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html.

Thank you,

The IESG Secretary

Technical Summary
 
   The Wireless LAN Control Protocol (WiCoP) described in this document
   allows for the control and provisioning of large-scale WLANs.  It
   enables central management of these networks and realizes the
   objectives set forth for the control and provisioning of wireless
   access points (CAPWAP).

Working Group Summary
 
   This document was a candidate protocol submission for the Control and 
   Provisioning of Wireless Access Points (CAPWAP) Working Group. It is 
   being published for informational and historical reference purposes. 

Protocol Quality
 
   The evaluation of the candidate protocols for CAPWAP is being 
   described in RFC 4565.

   This document is not a candidate for any level of Internet
   Standard.  The document has not had complete IETF review for such
   things as security, congestion control, or inappropriate interaction 
   with deployed protocols.

Note to RFC Editor

   The IESG takes note that this submission is being published for 
   historic reference, with the intention to document an initial
   submission for the CAPWAP protocol. In order to avoid confusion, the
   IESG recommends that this document  be published only after the 
   approval and publication of the CAPWAP protocol (draft-ietf-capwap-
   protocol-specification) as Proposed Standard. 
 
   The IESG believes that the appropriate status at the publication of 
   this RFC would be 'Historic', and that the note 'Obsoleted by RFC
   xxxx' should be added on the front page, where xxxx will be the RFC 
   number of the CAPWAP protocol specification. 

RFC Editor, please make the following changes:
 
   1. Place either in or immediately following the "Status of this Memo"
   section of the finished RFC the IESG note below
 
   2. Add the note 'Obsoleted by RFC xxxx' on the front page, where xxxx 
   will be the RFC number of the CAPWAP protocol specification.

   3. Update the boilerplate according to RFC 4748

   4. Rename 'References' Section as 'Informative References'

   5. Replace outdated reference draft-ietf-capwap-arch by RFC 4118

   6. Replace outdated reference draft-ietf-capwap-objectives by RFC 4564

   7. Replace outdated reference draft-ietf-capwap-problem-statement by
   RFC 3990

IESG Note

  In conformance with RFC 3932, Section 4, the IESG requests the
  publication of the following note:

  "This RFC documents the WiCoP protocol as it was when submitted to
  the IETF as a basis for further work in the CAPWAP WG, and therefore
  it may resemble the CAPWAP protocol specification (RFC XXXX), as well
  as other current IETF work in progress or published IETF work.
  This RFC is being published solely for the historical record. The 
  protocol described in this RFC has not been thoroughly reviewed and may
  contain errors and omissions. 

  RFC XXXX documents the standards track solution for the CAPWAP
  Working Group and obsoletes any and all mechanisms defined in this RFC.
  This RFC itself is not a candidate for any level of Internet 
  Standard and should not be used as a basis for any sort of deployment 
  in the Internet.

  The IETF disclaims any knowledge of the fitness of this
  RFC for any purpose, and in particular notes that it has not had
  complete IETF review for such things as security, congestion control,
  or inappropriate interaction with deployed protocols.  The RFC Editor
  has chosen to publish this document at its discretion."

IANA Note

   As this document is not a candidate for standardization or deployment
   in the Internet, IANA is not required to take any action.

_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce