Behcet,

CAPWAP does not decide how to roam but tells how the CAPWAP specifies division 
of labor between WTP and AC in course of BSS transitions. Hence section 11.2 
is in scope.

The charter or agreed architectural objectives does not include context 
transfers by CAPWAP between 'AP's - except: much of the context of 
conventional AP is now already resident in AC and changes the scope of 
an "inter-AP" transfer.

AC-AC context transfer also remains out of scope - though it is a worthy 
problem as well for mobility considerations.

Your draft's overview section says
"For both Local and Split MAC WTPs, authentication is based on IEEE
   802.11i.  Full 802.11i authentication is carried for the first time
   association of the stations.  CAPWAPHP transfers AAA context to the
   neighbor Local MAC WTPs so that when the station reassociates with a
   neighbor WTP, only 4-way handshake of 802.11i authentication can be
   carried."

The relevance of this to the follow-up 802.11r and subsequent local-MAC 
division of labor changes quite a bit. 802.11r optimizes intra-ESS security 
transitions (and some related contexts) and is about to resolve how to do so 
in the backend. It does not amount to plain context transfer - but (security)
context-derivation for the target and that too not necessarily from deleted-
mobile to added-mobile.

We have suggested pursuing discussions on the list as well to gauge WG opinion 
if this draft shows up required functionality missing from what is already 
provided.

If time permits (earlier agenda items do not eat up available time) - we 
should be able to accommodate a short presentation at IETF65.

Regards,
-mani
-----Original Message-----
From: Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 11:20 AM
To: capwap@frascone.com
Subject: [Capwap] Handover issue

Dear all,
  I would like to raise this issue within the framework of the draft we 
submitted to CAPWAP. I already raised it with the chairs.
  The issue is whether roaming/ handover is within the scope of CAPWAP.
I checked with the latest protocol spec :
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-capwap-protocol-specifica
tion-00.txt
in Sec. 11.2 there is a discussion of roaming stations.
  If the roaming is out of scope, I suggest that all roaming references be 
removed from the spec and this issue be left to further work.
  If the roaming is in the scope then I'll appreciate comments on our draft 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-sarikaya-capwap-capwaphp-01.tx
t
which presents a more comprehensive solution.
Regards,

--behcet