Subject: [Capwap] The revised draft of CAPWAP Objectives.

From: "Mani, Mahalingam (Mahalingam)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 23:28:58 -0600

The revised draft incorporating the changes suggested during this WGLC
period ending 4/11/05

Has been submitted. This draft is available in

http://ietf.webdav.org/capwap/draft-ietf-capwap-objectives-02.txt

[It may be a while before it appears in the IETF repository & website].

This is to be submitted for expert review at IEEE and for IESG review.

Regards,

-mani

======

---

From: Dan Harkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 00:40:58 -0700

Section 5.3.2 describes a requirement whose consensus I question.
The only support of this was lukewarm at best and consisted of
"I support this requirement" from two people, one of whom had
previously supported its removal (or the removal of its duplicate).

  This requirement was deemed a duplicate by myself, a working group
chair (acting as an "individual contributor" though), and the editor
of the objectives draft itself.

  It received no expressed support from anyone else. So how does it
become the consensus of the working group?

  Dan.

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 23:28:58 MDT you wrote
> This is to be submitted for expert review at IEEE and for IESG review.

_______________________________________________
Capwap mailing list
[email-masked]
http://mail.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap

---

From: Dan Harkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 00:43:46 -0700

Strike that; it's "rejected". Open mouth, insert foot. Mmmmmm, foot.

  Dan.

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 00:40:58 PDT I wrote