Control and Provisioning of Wireless Access Points (CAPWAP) Protocol Base MIB
draft-ietf-capwap-base-mib-09
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2012-08-22
|
09 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Pasi Eronen |
2012-08-22
|
09 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Adrian Farrel |
2012-08-22
|
09 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Russ Housley |
2010-02-12
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2010-02-12
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2010-02-12
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2010-02-11
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan |
2010-02-11
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2010-02-11
|
09 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2010-02-11
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2010-02-11
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2010-02-11
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2010-02-10
|
09 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Pasi Eronen has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Pasi Eronen |
2010-02-10
|
09 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
2010-02-10
|
09 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-capwap-base-mib-09.txt |
2010-01-22
|
09 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2010-01-21 |
2010-01-21
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan |
2010-01-21
|
09 | Amy Vezza | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Russ Housley has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Amy Vezza |
2010-01-21
|
09 | Ross Callon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon |
2010-01-21
|
09 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko |
2010-01-21
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Adrian Farrel has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Adrian Farrel |
2010-01-21
|
09 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot 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: - … [Ballot 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) |
2010-01-21
|
09 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Pasi Eronen |
2010-01-20
|
09 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings |
2010-01-20
|
09 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk |
2010-01-20
|
09 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Robert Sparks |
2010-01-19
|
09 | Lisa Dusseault | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault |
2010-01-19
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] Support Russ's Discuss about separating the protocol extensions from this MIB module specification. It seems that these protocol extensions would be useful even … [Ballot comment] Support Russ's Discuss about separating the protocol extensions from this MIB module specification. It seems that these protocol extensions would be useful even if some other form of configuration (other than SNMP) was used. --- Section 9.1 DataChannelKeepAlive: A 16-bit value representing the time, in seconds, that is used by the WTP to determine the next must transmit the Data Channel Keep Alive. (see section 4.7.2 of [RFC5415]). s/next/next time it/ DataChannelDeadInterval: A 16-bit value representing the minimum time, in seconds, a WTP MUST wait without having received a Data Channel Alive packets MAY be considered dead. The value of this timer MUST be no less than 2*DataChannelKeepAlive seconds and no greater that 240 seconds (see section 4.7.3 of [RFC5415]). s/packets MAY/packet before it MAY/ --- It would be nice to indicate the source RFCs in comments in the IMPORTS clause |
2010-01-19
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot discuss] While I understand that there is WG consensus to publish this as Informational, and while I hear the statement that there was not … [Ballot discuss] While I understand that there is WG consensus to publish this as Informational, and while I hear the statement that there was not sufficient WG interest to publish as a PS, I am uncomfortable with the status of this document as Informational as it stands. As presented, the MIB module is part of the standard MIB. That is, it is presented as implementable and deployable. Yet, as Informational, I don't believe that is what the WG is saying. There seem to be three options here: 1. Publish as Informational, but include text in the Abstract, Introduction *and* elsewhere to clarify the status of the MIB module. Consider whether the OID should be chosen differently. 2. Publish as Experimental. State that it is hoped that there will be feed back to the WG on the MIB module at which time the module can be revised or moved to the standards track. 3. Publish as PS on the basis that at least four people are interested enough to produce the document. |
2010-01-19
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Adrian Farrel |
2010-01-18
|
09 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica |
2010-01-18
|
09 | Russ Housley | [Ballot discuss] In the Gen-ART Review by David Black, this document is described as a MIB module that also contains extensions to the CAPWAP … [Ballot discuss] In the Gen-ART Review by David Black, this document is described as a MIB module that also contains extensions to the CAPWAP protocol. We do not usually put protocol extensions and MIB modules in the same document. Why is that the right thing to do in this case? |
2010-01-18
|
09 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Russ Housley |
2010-01-16
|
09 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Alexey Melnikov |
2010-01-16
|
09 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot comment] capwapBaseNtfStationIdList OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX LongUtf8String (SIZE (6..1024)) MAX-ACCESS accessible-for-notify STATUS current DESCRIPTION … [Ballot comment] capwapBaseNtfStationIdList OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX LongUtf8String (SIZE (6..1024)) MAX-ACCESS accessible-for-notify STATUS current DESCRIPTION "Represents a list of station identifiers separated by semicolons." REFERENCE "Section 4.6.17. of CAPWAP Protocol Specification, RFC 5415." Is the section reference correct? RFC 5415, Section 4.6.17 has title "Decryption Error Report". ::= { capwapBaseNotifyVarObjects 6 } |
2010-01-13
|
09 | Dan Romascanu | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2010-01-21 by Dan Romascanu |
2010-01-13
|
09 | Dan Romascanu | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup by Dan Romascanu |
2010-01-13
|
09 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Dan Romascanu |
2010-01-13
|
09 | Dan Romascanu | Ballot has been issued by Dan Romascanu |
2010-01-13
|
09 | Dan Romascanu | Created "Approve" ballot |
2010-01-11
|
08 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-capwap-base-mib-08.txt |
2010-01-02
|
09 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
2010-01-02
|
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-capwap-base-mib-07.txt |
2009-12-09
|
09 | Dan Romascanu | State Changes to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Dan Romascanu |
2009-12-08
|
09 | Amanda Baber | IANA comments: QUESTION: the ifType requested in section 12.2 is also being requested by draft-ietf-capwap-802dot11-mib. Should both documents be listed as references? Upon approval of … IANA comments: QUESTION: the ifType requested in section 12.2 is also being requested by draft-ietf-capwap-802dot11-mib. Should both documents be listed as references? Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following assignment at http://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers Prefix: iso.org.dod.internet.mgmt.mib-2 (1.3.6.1.2.1) Decimal Name Description Reference ------- | ------------ | ------------------------------- | --------- TBD | capwapBaseMIB | CAPWAP Protocol Base MIB | [RFC-capwap-base-mib-06] |
2009-12-07
|
09 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system |
2009-11-28
|
09 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Jeffrey Hutzelman |
2009-11-28
|
09 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Jeffrey Hutzelman |
2009-11-23
|
09 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
2009-11-23
|
09 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
2009-11-23
|
09 | Dan Romascanu | State Changes to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested by Dan Romascanu |
2009-11-23
|
09 | Dan Romascanu | Last Call was requested by Dan Romascanu |
2009-11-23
|
09 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2009-11-23
|
09 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2009-11-23
|
09 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2009-11-05
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the … (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? Margaret Wasserman. Yes, I have reviewed these documents, and I believe that they are ready for publication as Informational RFCs. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? Originally these documents were intended for publication as a Proposed Standard, and I don't believe that the documents have been well-enough reviewed by implementers of the CAPWAP protocols for that status. I do believe that they have been adequately reviewed for Informational status. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization, or XML? Not for Informational status. (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. No. (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? There are a small number of people who were ever interested enough in this document to read it. I believe that those people have solid consensus that it is ready to publish as Informational. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is entered into the ID Tracker.) No. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/.) Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews? If the document does not already indicate its intended status at the top of the first page, please indicate the intended status here. I believe that it meets all nits and has been properly reviewed by the MIB doctors. I have not personally run it through any MIB tools. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. Yes, the references are split and look correctly categorized to me. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA Considerations section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation? Yes, the IANA section is present and appears to be correct. There is no expert review specified, as this document only allocates values from established registries. (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? I did not run a MIB checker on this document, but the MIB format appears to be correct. (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. This document defines managed objects for modeling the Control and Provisioning of Wireless Access Points (CAPWAP) Protocol. Working Group Summary Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? There was not enough working group involvement with this document to warrant publication as a Proposed Standard. This was disappointing, as we did have a charter item to publish a standards-track MIB. The document is complete, though, and there is no disagreement about publishing it as Informational. Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type Review, on what date was the request posted? There is at least one implementation of this protocol underway. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Who is the Responsible Area Director? If the document requires IANA experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries in this document are .' Margaret Wasserman is the document shepherd for this document. Dan Romascanu is the responsible AD. |
2009-11-05
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | Draft Added by Cindy Morgan in state Publication Requested |
2009-11-05
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | [Note]: 'Margaret Wasserman (mrw@sandstorm.net) is the document shepherd.' added by Cindy Morgan |
2009-08-13
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-capwap-base-mib-06.txt |
2009-05-30
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-capwap-base-mib-05.txt |
2009-02-28
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-capwap-base-mib-04.txt |
2008-11-01
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-capwap-base-mib-03.txt |
2008-10-27
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-capwap-base-mib-02.txt |
2008-10-11
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-capwap-base-mib-01.txt |
2008-06-09
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-capwap-base-mib-00.txt |