| FW: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-capwap-base-mib | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
|
From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) (dromasca |
|
| Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 02:11:01 -0800 (PST) | |
Richard, Please address the issues raised by Pasi in his DISCUSS. Thanks and Regards, Dan -----Original Message----- From: iesg-bounces [at] ietf.org [mailto:iesg-bounces [at] ietf.org] On Behalf Of Pasi Eronen Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 12:07 PM To: iesg [at] ietf.org Cc: capwap-chairs [at] tools.ietf.org; draft-ietf-capwap-base-mib [at] tools.ietf.org 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)
- (no other messages in thread)
Results generated by Tiger Technologies using MHonArc.