IEEE 802.11 Medium Access Control (MAC) Profile for Control and Provisioning of Wireless Access Points (CAPWAP)
RFC 7494
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.
(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) Yes
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection
(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) No Objection
(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) No Objection
(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection
(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection
(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
Thank you for addressing the SecDir review: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg05260.html
(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection
(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) No Objection
(Richard Barnes; former steering group member) No Objection
(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection
- intro, last para: Figure 1's last row says "WTP" in the Local MAC column, but the text here implies that it should say AC - what am I getting wrong? - sec cons. saying WAP and AC messages "is encrypted" is not quite what you want - I think you need to say that those messages have origin authentication and data integrity (which they should have if "encrypted" properly, and if they're not that not this doc's fault).
(Ted Lemon; former steering group member) No Objection
Does the abstract really need to be as long as it is? Wouldn't it be sufficient to say something like this? The CAPWAP protocol binding for IEEE 802.11 defines two MAC modes for IEEE 802.11 WTP: Split and Local MAC. In the Split MAC mode, the partitioning of encryption/decryption functions are not clearly defined. This leads to interoperability issues, especially when the Access Controller (AC) and Wireless Transmission Point (WTP) come from different vendors. To prevent interoperability issues, this specification defines an IEEE 802.11 MAC profile message element in which each profile specifies an unambiguous division of encryption functionality between the WTP and AC. I think this is sufficient information for people to figure out what the purpose of the document is, and then people who are interested in the stated problem will read the document. The other information in the abstract seems unnecessary, and increases the workload of the reader who is deciding whether or not the document is something they need to read based on the abstract.