Hi, All: Please check the left issues. My new comments are under "---------" Some issues need the guidance from Dan or Margaret. BTW, the email address of David Perkins and Chris are updated in the reception address.
> [Richard] It is a very general conception. > I checked the RFC5415, it does not give the definition of PHY. > How about: physical layer (PHY) in the place where it first appears? > I am ok with adding a definition of PHY if it is a better solution. [David] I think a definition is preferable. For wired Ethernet, the PHY is a specific piece of functionality (can be in a separate chip) that sits between the transceiver and the Ethernet controller. The PHY definition in this draft needs to indicate whether the term covers only this area of functionality vs. covers the entire physical layer including the transceivers and communication medium (e.g., radio transceivers, antennas and wireless signals in this case). ------------------------- [Richard] Frankly, it is difficult for me to give an accurate definition to the PHY. The better way is to get it from the existing standards. I checked the IEEE 802.11-2007. It does not give the definition there. See (copy from IEEE 802.11-2007): 1.1 Scope The scope of this standard is to define one medium access control (MAC) and several physical layer (PHY) specifications for wireless connectivity for fixed, portable, and moving stations (STAs) within a local area. So I suggest: How about: physical layer (PHY) in the place where it first appears? > > Section 5.1 should explain the division of management of a WTP between > > the actual CAPWAP protocol and this MIB. The first bullet creates > > this confusion, and that bullet is not consistent with the first > > bullet in 5.4. That lack of consistency should be corrected in > > addition to providing the explanation. > [Richard] I did not get the point. Kindly give more input [David] The first bullet in 5.1 implies that all management of a WTP is via this MIB. OTOH, The first bullet in 5.4 says that the MIB is optional for a WTP. The combination allows unmanaged WTPs - I don't think that was what was intended, rather the basic level of WTP management is in the CAPWAP protocol itself, and the MIB adds additional management functionality. ------------------------- [Richard] 5.1 is to explain the function. 5.4 (the MIB is optional for a WTP) is to explain that SNMP agent is not REQUIRED on the WTP devices. If you feel is not clear, kindly suggest how to updates the text. Thanks. To Dan: Please give your option. > > [*] The text in Section 5.7 attempts to modify RFC 5415. That's not a > > good idea for an Informational document. It is ok to say that if the > > additional requirements are not followed, this MIB will not be useful > > or usable. > [Richard] > The WG already made the consensus on it after IETF 75th, > and the WG agree to use the following text. > The section 4.6.40 [RFC5415] does not clarify that the WTP's Base MAC > address MUST be included in the WTP Board Data message element. This > is a known errata item and assumed to be fixed in future by > the editors of > the RFC5415. [David] Make sure that this errata item is filed against RFC 5415 with the RFC Editor. ------------------------- [Richard] Dan or Margaret please confirm it. > > [*] I see lots of editorial problems in the text prior to the MIB > > definitions, most of which are not called out in this review. I > > strongly suggest an editorial pass by a native speaker of English > > prior to IESG Review. Here's an example from Section > > [Richard] Margaret or Dan, please consider how to handle it. > For the text, I can't do better job than a native speaker of English:( [David] Understood - I would hope that one of your co-authors would step up to do this. ------------------------- [Richard] I am not sure that David Perkins or Chris could put effort on it. So Dan or Margaret please consider how to handle it. > > [*] Why is Section 9 (CAPWAP Message Element Extension) in a MIB > > draft? MIB drafts generally do not make changes to the protocol that > > they provide management for. This section, and the changes in Section > > 5.7 ought to be in a separate draft that could be standards track. > ---------------------------------- David, Dan or Margaret, Please check the following text. > [Richard] Margaret or Dan, please confirm whether it is allowed to have > the Message Element Extension in the MIB drafts. > The "manageable" in the current text "To enable CAPWAP protocol timers and > variables [RFC5415] manageable through CAPWAP protocol" is not very clear. > Maybe the word "viewable " is better. > How about we use the text "To enable CAPWAP protocol timers and variables > [RFC5415] viewable on the AC through CAPWAP protocol" ? > > Since the MIB objects (such as "capwapBaseAcMaxRetransmit" ) corresponding > to the CAPWAP protocol timers and variables are optional, whether it is > required to add some text > in the Section 9 to clarify that the CAPWAP Message Element > Extension is optional? Regards Richard -----邮件原件----- 发件人: black_da...@emc.com [mailto:black_da...@emc.com] 发送时间: 2009年12月1日 10:53 收件人: yo...@h3c.com; dperk...@snmpinfo.com; yzh...@fortinet.com; gen-art@ietf.org; m...@lilacglade.org; droma...@avaya.com 抄送: mm...@avaya.com; dorothy.gell...@gmail.com; cap...@frascone.com; black_da...@emc.com 主题: RE: My (Richard) comments to the Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-capwap-base-mib-06 Richard, Comments embedded ... Thanks, --David > Hi, All : > > Please check my comments identified by the [Richard]. > To David: Thanks a lot. > > > The important open issues that need to be resolved are tagged with [*]. > > > > [*] Intended document status is now Informational. That needs to be > > changed on the title page, but more importantly, someone (draft > > shepherd?) should double-check whether the requested IANA allocations > > are appropriate for an Informational document. If there's a problem > > here, the IESG should be warned that a process exception may be > > needed, as I think the allocations are necessary for this draft. > > [Richard] Margaret or Dan, please confirm it. Dan's working on it. > > [*] I see lots of editorial problems in the text prior to the MIB > > definitions, most of which are not called out in this review. I > > strongly suggest an editorial pass by a native speaker of English > > prior to IESG Review. Here's an example from Section > > [Richard] Margaret or Dan, please consider how to handle it. > For the text, I can't do better job than a native speaker of English:( Understood - I would hope that one of your co-authors would step up to do this. > > 5.6 - the use of the word "conception" is incorrect in this phrase: > > the protocol of [RFC5416] defines WLAN conception > > A better word would be "creation". > > [Richard] Hi, David. Whether "management" instead of "creation" is > better? I think that's ok. > > Terminology section: > > - Add a definition of PHY, it's undefined in this document. > > [Richard] It is a very general conception. > I checked the RFC5415, it does not give the definition of PHY. > How about: physical layer (PHY) in the place where it first appears? > I am ok with adding a definition of PHY if it is a better solution. I think a definition is preferable. For wired Ethernet, the PHY is a specific piece of functionality (can be in a separate chip) that sits between the transceiver and the Ethernet controller. The PHY definition in this draft needs to indicate whether the term covers only this area of functionality vs. covers the entire physical layer including the transceivers and communication medium (e.g., radio transceivers, antennas and wireless signals in this case). > > - Add a definition of WLAN, while it's defined elsewhere, WLAN > > is a crucial concept for this draft and hence needs a > > definition here. > [Richard] I am ok. > > > - The definition of station (STA) is sufficiently general to > > include WTPs. Was that intended? > > [Richard] I got the definition of station (STA) and WTP from RFC5415. Then I presume this was intended. > > Section 5.1 should explain the division of management of a WTP between > > the actual CAPWAP protocol and this MIB. The first bullet creates > > this confusion, and that bullet is not consistent with the first > > bullet in 5.4. That lack of consistency should be corrected in > > addition to providing the explanation. > [Richard] I did not get the point. Kindly give more input The first bullet in 5.1 implies that all management of a WTP is via this MIB. OTOH, The first bullet in 5.4 says that the MIB is optional for a WTP. The combination allows unmanaged WTPs - I don't think that was what was intended, rather the basic level of WTP management is in the CAPWAP protocol itself, and the MIB adds additional management functionality. > > Section 5.4: "The ifIndex [RFC2863] is used as a common handler" I > > don't think it's a "handler". The ifIndex is actually an index. > [Richard] How about use "index" instead of "handler". Ok. > > [*] The text in Section 5.7 attempts to modify RFC 5415. That's not a > > good idea for an Informational document. It is ok to say that if the > > additional requirements are not followed, this MIB will not be useful > > or usable. > [Richard] > The WG already made the consensus on it after IETF 75th, > and the WG agree to use the following text. > The section 4.6.40 [RFC5415] does not clarify that the WTP's Base MAC > address MUST be included in the WTP Board Data message element. This > is a known errata item and assumed to be fixed in future by > the editors of > the RFC5415. Make sure that this errata item is filed against RFC 5415 with the RFC Editor. > > > [*] Why is Section 9 (CAPWAP Message Element Extension) in a MIB > > draft? MIB drafts generally do not make changes to the protocol that > > they provide management for. This section, and the changes in Section > > 5.7 ought to be in a separate draft that could be standards track. > > [Richard] Margaret or Dan, please confirm whether it is allowed to have > the Message Element Extension in the MIB drafts. > The "manageable" in the current text "To enable CAPWAP protocol timers and > variables [RFC5415] manageable through CAPWAP protocol" is not very clear. > Maybe the word "viewable " is better. > How about we use the text "To enable CAPWAP protocol timers and variables > [RFC5415] viewable on the AC through CAPWAP protocol" ? > > Since the MIB objects (such as "capwapBaseAcMaxRetransmit" ) corresponding > to the CAPWAP protocol timers and variables are optional, whether it is > required to add some text > in the Section 9 to clarify that the CAPWAP Message Element > Extension is optional? > > > Appendix A (change history) should include a request to the RFC Editor > > to remove it before publication of the RFC. > [Richard] It is ok. > > > idnits 2.11.15 found a couple of nits: > > > > == The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but was > > first submitted before 10 November 2008. Should you add the disclaimer? > > (See the Legal Provisions document at > > http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.). > > [Richard] It is ok. > > > == Outdated reference: A later version (-05) exists of > > draft-ietf-capwap-802dot11-mib-04 > > [Richard] It is ok. > > The following recipient(s) could not be reached: > > chell...@cisco.com on 11/25/2009 7:43 PM > The e-mail system was unable to deliver the > message, but did not > report a specific reason. Check the address and try again. > If it still > fails, contact your system administrator. > < sj-inbound-d.cisco.com #5.0.0 smtp; 5.1.0 - > Unknown address > error 550-'5.1.1 <chell...@cisco.com>... User unknown' (delivery > attempts: 0)> > > [Richard] I am not able get the Chris' other email address. > Do the chairs or the mailing list know his other email address except the > chell...@cisco.com? > > Regards > Richard > > -----邮件原件----- > 发件人: black_da...@emc.com [mailto:black_da...@emc.com] > 发送时间: 2009年11月26日 8:48 > 收件人: yo...@h3c.com; dperk...@snmpinfo.com; yzh...@fortinet.com; > gen-art@ietf.org > 抄送: mm...@avaya.com; dorothy.gell...@gmail.com; m...@lilacglade.org; > droma...@avaya.com; cap...@frascone.com; black_da...@emc.com > 主题: RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-capwap-base-mib-06 > > Another open issue is that the email address for Chris Elliott > in this draft is wrong and needs to be corrected ... > > The following recipient(s) could not be reached: > > chell...@cisco.com on 11/25/2009 7:43 PM > The e-mail system was unable to deliver the > message, but did > not report a specific reason. Check the address and try again. If it > still fails, contact your system administrator. > < sj-inbound-d.cisco.com #5.0.0 smtp; 5.1.0 - Unknown > address error 550-'5.1.1 <chell...@cisco.com>... User > unknown' (delivery > attempts: 0)> > > > Thanks, > --David > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Black, David > > Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 7:43 PM > > To: yo...@h3c.com; dperk...@snmpinfo.com; chell...@cisco.com; > > yzh...@fortinet.com; gen-art@ietf.org > > Cc: Black, David; mm...@avaya.com; dorothy.gell...@gmail.com; > > m...@lilacglade.org; Dan (Dan) Romascanu; cap...@frascone.com > > Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-capwap-base-mib-06 > > > > I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) > > reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see > > http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). > > > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call > > comments you may receive. > > > > Document: draft-ietf-capwap-base-mib-06 > > Reviewer: David L. Black > > Review Date: November 25, 2009 > > IETF LC End Date: December 7, 2009 > > > > Summary: > > This draft is on the right track, but has open issues, described > > in the review. > > > > Comments: > > This draft defines a MIB for the CAPWAP protocol. It also extends > > that protocol, which is a peculiar thing to do in a MIB document. > > I've left review of the actual MIB definitions to the expertise > > of the MIB Doctors. > > > > The important open issues that need to be resolved are tagged > > with [*]. > > > > [*] Intended document status is now Informational. That needs to > > be changed on the title page, but more importantly, someone > > (draft shepherd?) should double-check whether the requested > > IANA allocations are appropriate for an Informational document. > > If there's a problem here, the IESG should be warned that a > > process exception may be needed, as I think the allocations are > > necessary for this draft. > > > > [*] I see lots of editorial problems in the text prior to the > > MIB definitions, most of which are not called out in this review. > > I strongly suggest an editorial pass by a native speaker of > > English prior to IESG Review. Here's an example from Section > > 5.6 - the use of the word "conception" is incorrect in this phrase: > > the protocol of [RFC5416] defines WLAN conception > > A better word would be "creation". > > > > Terminology section: > > - Add a definition of PHY, it's undefined in this document. > > - Add a definition of WLAN, while it's defined elsewhere, WLAN > > is a crucial concept for this draft and hence needs a > > definition here. > > - The definition of station (STA) is sufficiently general to > > include WTPs. Was that intended? > > > > Section 5.1 should explain the division of management of a > > WTP between the actual CAPWAP protocol and this MIB. The > > first bullet creates this confusion, and that bullet is not > > consistent with the first bullet in 5.4. That lack of > > consistency should be corrected in addition to providing > > the explanation. > > > > Section 5.4: "The ifIndex [RFC2863] is used as a common handler" > > I don't think it's a "handler". The ifIndex is actually an index. > > > > [*] The text in Section 5.7 attempts to modify RFC 5415. That's > > not a good idea for an Informational document. It is ok to > > say that if the additional requirements are not followed, this > > MIB will not be useful or usable. > > > > [*] Why is Section 9 (CAPWAP Message Element Extension) in a > > MIB draft? MIB drafts generally do not make changes to the > > protocol that they provide management for. This section, and > > the changes in Section 5.7 ought to be in a separate draft > > that could be standards track. > > > > Appendix A (change history) should include a request to the > > RFC Editor to remove it before publication of the RFC. > > > > idnits 2.11.15 found a couple of nits: > > > > == The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 > > work, but was > > first submitted before 10 November 2008. Should you add > > the disclaimer? > > (See the Legal Provisions document at > > http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.). > > > > == Outdated reference: A later version (-05) exists of > > draft-ietf-capwap-802dot11-mib-04 > > > > Thanks, > > --David > > ---------------------------------------------------- > > David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer > > EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748 > > +1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786 > > black_da...@emc.com Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 > > ---------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
