SLAPP: Secure Light Access Point Protocol
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <email@example.com> To: RFC Editor <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: The IESG <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com Subject: Re: Informational RFC to be: draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-01.txt The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'SLAPP : Secure Light Access Point Protocol' <draft-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-01.txt> as an Informational RFC. The IESG would also like the IRSG or RFC-Editor to review the comments in the datatracker (https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=13058&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-narasimhan-ietf-slapp-01.txt The process for such documents is described at http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html. Thank you, The IESG Secretary
Technical Summary The CAPWAP problem statement (RFC 3990) describes a problem that needs to be addressed before a wireless LAN (WLAN) network designer can construct a solution composed of Wireless Termination Points (WTP) and Access Controllers (AC) from multiple, different vendors. One of the primary goals is to find a solution that solves the interoperability between the two classes of devices (WTPs and ACs) which then enables an AC from one vendor to control and manage a WTP from another. The interoperability problem is more general than as stated in the CAPWAP problem statement because it can arise out of other networks that do not necessarily involve WLAN or any wireless devices. A similar problem exists in any network that is composed of network elements that are managed by a centralized controller where these two classes of devices are from different vendors and need to interoperate with each other such that the network elements can be controlled and managed by the controller. A possible solution to this problem is to split it into two parts - one that is technology or application independent which serves as a common framework across multiple underlying technologies, and another that is dependent on the underlying technology that is being used in the network. For example, methods and parameters used by an 802.11 AC to configure and manage a network of 802.11 WTPs are expected to be quite different than that used by an equivalent 802.16 controller to manage a network of 802.16 base stations. The architectural choices for these two underlying technologies may also be significantly different. This document defines a protocol that forms the common technology-independent framework and the ability to negotiate and add, on top of this framework, a control protocol that contains a technology-dependent component to arrive at a complete solution. It also defines two such control protocols - an 802.11 Control protocol, and another a more generic image download protocol, in this draft. Even though the text in this document is written to specifically address the problem stated in RFC 3990, the solution can be applied to any problem that has a controller (equivalent to the AC) managing one or more network elements (equivalent to the WTP). 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-objectives by RFC 4564 6. Replace outdated reference draft-rescorla-dtls by RFC 4347 7. Replace obsolete reference: RFC 2246 by RFC 4346 IESG Note In conformance with RFC 3932, Section 4, the IESG requests the publication of the following note: "This RFC documents the SLAPP 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.