Re: laugh test - capwap

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>]

high level thought:

Split AP is another sushi truck control protocol - in the Internet, but not 
of the Internet.

The justifications for doing it in the IETF would be:
- it's important for the Internet, because so many clients are 802.11 
wireless (doesn't convince me)
- it's important to be interoperable between vendors, so a standard is 
needed (seems OK, but doesn't bias IEEE/IETF choice of venue)
- IETF has more expertise in doing this (for some definiton of "this") than 
IEEE (seems doubtful)

The last effort that tried for something in nearly the same space was 
FORCES, I think. What's the relationship (if any) between what was learned 
there and this effort?

Nit - one thing is for certain: calling the thing that does weird stuff 
with Access Points an Access Router is a biasing of the architecture that's 
completely uncalled-for. No way you should require the net's access router 
and AP controller to be on the same box.

My small change.

               Harald