All,

Please see the following text to address this specific issue. I also noted 
that in adding section 14.2 that the first section did not provide guidance on 
the action type required for the assignment of a message type. I have 
therefore added some text and included it here for review.

<proposed text>
14.1.  CAPWAP Message Types

   The Message Type field in the CAPWAP header (Section 4.5.1.1) is used
   to identify the operation performed by the message.  There are
   multiple namespaces, which is identified via the first three octets
   of the field containing the IANA Enterprise Number [10].  When the
   Enterprise Number is set to zero, the message types are reserved for
   use by the base CAPWAP specification which are controlled and
   maintained by IANA and requires a Standards Action.

14.2.  Wireless Binding Identifiers

   The Wireless Binding Identifier (WBID) field in the CAPWAP header
   (Section 4.3) is used to identify the wireless technology associated
   with the packet.  Due to the limited address space available, a new
   WBID request requires Standards Action.

</proposed text>

The base specification defines three binding identifiers:  one for  
IEEE 802.11, one for IEEE 802.16 and one for EPCglobal.  It seems  
likely that other bindings will be defined in the future, perhaps  
even by organizations outside of the IETF.

Therefore, we should probably set-up an IANA registry for Wireless  
Binding Identifiers, with these three values as the initial  
contents.  We would also need to determine the criteria that would be  
used for the allocation of new binding types.  People should read RFC  
2434 to understand what our choices are, so that we can have an  
informed discussion of this topic.