Wireless LAN Control Protocol (WiCoP)
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-iino-capwap-wicop-02.txt The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'Wireless LAN Control Protocol (WiCoP)' <draft-iino-capwap-wicop-02.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=13039&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-iino-capwap-wicop-02.txt The process for such documents is described at http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html. Thank you, The IESG Secretary
Technical Summary The Wireless LAN Control Protocol (WiCoP) described in this document allows for the control and provisioning of large-scale WLANs. It enables central management of these networks and realizes the objectives set forth for the control and provisioning of wireless access points (CAPWAP). 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 It is being published for informational and historical reference purposes.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-arch by RFC 4118 6. Replace outdated reference draft-ietf-capwap-objectives by RFC 4564 7. Replace outdated reference draft-ietf-capwap-problem-statement by RFC 3990 IESG Note In conformance with RFC 3932, Section 4, the IESG requests the publication of the following note: "This RFC documents the WiCoP 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.