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:"