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-protocol-binding-ieee80211-07.txt
CAPWAP Protocol Binding for IEEE 802.11
Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern
Review Date: August 2, 2008
IETF LC End Date: Any day now
IESG Telechat date: N/A
Summary: This document is almost ready for publication as a Proposed
Standard.
Question:
The document (in section 2.5) calls for specific DSCP values (46 and
34) to be used on management frames. Two questions:
Is this the decimal value of the 6 bit DSCP field, or the decimal value
of the 8 bit ToS field, or a hex value?
More important question: The DSCP RFCs make it very clear that the
meanings of DSCP values are locally defined by network operators. As
such, shouldn't this be defined in terms of the intend PHB, not the
DSCP? I.e. define the desired behavioral treatment, and indicate the
common code point used to represent that treatment? If the meanings of
these code points in this environment is standardized, then there MUST
be a reference so that a reader can figure out what that standard is.
Confusion:
In section 6.9 describing the Multi-Domain Capability, the text refers
to "the associated domain country string" There is no domain country
string in the particular information element being defined. And there
appears to be no domain country string defined elsewhere in the
document. So what is the "associated domain country string", how is it
associated, and how is the implementor supposed to know what is meant?
(There are lots of explicit cross-references to the IEEE specs for the
fields being sent. But no reference at all for the domain country string.)
Minor:
If it is necessary to revise the document, it would be a good idea to do
some work on the Introduction. This document, which provides the
protocol bindings, should actually explain what it means to provide the
protocol bindings. The reader should not be left to guess. I suspect
the WG felt that the sentence beginning "Use of CAPWAP control message
fields ..." covers the issue. It hints at it. A sentence or two
(assuming I have properly inferred the goal) stating that binding
consists of defining how a the CAPWAP protocol is to be used with a
specific technology, would solve this concern.
Also, it seems that the goals are mostly the general CAPWAP goals. So
it might be better if the first sentence of 1.1 read "Th goals of this
CAPWAP protocol binding are to make the capabilities of the CAPWAP
protocol available for use in conjunction with 802.11 wireless networks.
The capabilities to be made available can be summarized as:"
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf