Chairs: Dorothy Gellert, Margaret Wasserman, M Mani
(nobody volunteering for minutes)
Minutes: M Mani
Attendance: ~40
DG: Dorothy Gellert, MM: Mani, MW: Margaret, PC: Pat
Calhoun, DS: Dorothy Stanley, DR: Dan Romascanu, SK: Scott Kelly, CC:
DH: Dave Hetherington, MN: Madjid; CL: Clint Chaplin
· Agenda bashing & Chairs’ report (DG)
o MIB draft: Richard Young volunteered; call for addl volunteers
o Issue 138 will be the highest priority item and will be discussed for sense of consensus (no objections to agenda)
o Brief recap of Jan 07 interim and issues discussed thereat.
o EPCglobal (forum) coming up with RFID binding for CAPWAP
§ MW: the ditor of RFID bindings in good hands of Bob O’Hara.
o farewell to David Kessens (outgoing Ops AD), welcome to Ron Bonica (incoming Ops AD)
o Is MIB still important to WG? (no response)
§ Show of hands (3) that we should do MIB
§ How many want to review: 1
§ How many do not want MIB (0)
§ DR: explain how devices will be configured without MIB(someone said CLI). CLI is one option, but not guaranteed.
§ MW: AC config? DR: yes – that’s where MIBs are applied
§ DP: config for AC yes, some WTP-config through AC.
o DP: started long ago; got mibs from vendors; Richard has some sent; if anyone has MIB input to add to review send to list.
o WGLC on current doc or close off current issues within next 2 weeks or so that we can issue a refined draft to send to IEEE cross-SDO expert review
o Can work on issue138 after or before WGLC
o PC: If we can’t agree on 138 what WGLC will solve is not clear.
o DG: try to do consensus call over open issues in next 2 weeks.
· Issue138 discussion (MW)
o Issues & args were fairly complicated and had discussions w/o consensus in interim
o Encryption supported both wtp & ac? If both - which is mandatory where?
o Had discussed theoretically possible combo of discussions. Need agreement on an interoperable mode mandatory (or more than 1 mandatory mode)
§ (MW lists the combinations referring to the slide of table(ppt presentation available online)
o Need to say what is mandatory and what is optional
§ Have only one mode or both; at both ends or one end. Some don’t make sense (such as optional on both ends)
§ In favor of wtp supporting both modes – ac-central encryption can be favored in high-assurance environments (though not clear exactly what they are) – centralized encryption optional for modes. Both modes are widely aaialble in wtp.
§ For AC to do mandatory central-enc. Some AC’s out there don’t h/w encrypt-decrypt and hence problematic. No definitive answers yet from all chipset/wtp vendors whether they can make enc/dec a pass-thro.
§ Not many have understood the options available or their impact. (referring to the table).option 1 and option 2.
· option 1 has been put in the spec (05/02). – wtp must support enc/dec; ac can support either.
· Option 2: WTP-enc. Termination is mandatory. AC-enc is optional.
§ Consensus-chk: “1, 2 or either is OK with me”
§ Hou Zhao: AC must support enc at WTP – table must be modified to say so.
· In split-mac mode support either; in local-mac mode support wtp-enc.
· MW: local-mac case is implicit (wtp-mandatory)
§ MW: [not certain about what Scott proposes]
§ PC: not valid for issue.
· Exact text going under split-mac section is what matters. Local-mac is already handled.
§ DS: shd deal with what overall func needs supported; not where it goes in doc. options covering both as a whole: - agree with scott (lower right of option1 is MUST).
§ DS: whether wtp must support capability for ac-enc. – that is th only question.
§ MW: who thinks WTP and AC require to support both wtp-enc? - MUST
§ MW: how many think it is optional for AC to support WTP-enc? - MUST
§ MW: (how) should we mandate centralAC-enc?
· Editors report on 05/02 drafts
o Issue 173:
o Issue 227:
o Issue 236:
o Issue 226:
o Goals for 06/03: 138, 217, 246-250 to be resolved and relevant proposed-text addressed.
·
Security analysis (
o Should this be an end-end trust model or transitive trust model?
o We have had very little review on the doc. do review and provide feedback on the list.
· Call for volunteers to interoperability-bakeoff
o No response.