Subject: Re: [Capwap] Editorial - WTP Event Request

From: "Saravanan Govindan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 17:43:31 +0800

Hi Scott,

I see your point. I agree that any control message serves the purpose of
keep alive for the WTP.

In this case, I suggest the same text in Section 4.3 (CAPWAP Control
Messages) with slight modification;

"The exchange of a CAPWAP control message serves as an implicit keep
alive mechanism for the WTP. The arrival of a CAPWAP control message at
the AC indicates the WTP is operational. In cases where regular CAPWAP
control messages are not exchanged, explicit keep alive is used (see
Section 7)."

Comments?

Saravanan

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott G Kelly [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 9:20 PM
To: Saravanan Govindan
Cc: capwap
Subject: Re: [Capwap] Editorial - WTP Event Request

Hi Saravanan,

I thought there was general agreement that if *any* authenticated 
control traffic (not just an event request) is observed during the echo 
interval, this is implicit proof of liveness, and no echo request is 
required for that interval. Having text like what's suggested below 
(that only references the event request) might lead people to 
incorrectly conclude that only an event request can obviate the need for

an echo exchange.

Why should we have text which confers this special status only on the 
event request, rather than on all/any authenticated control channel
traffic?

Scott

Saravanan Govindan wrote:
> All,
> 
>  
> 
> I would like to suggest an editorial update to Section 9.5 (WTP Event 
> Request).
> 
>  
> 
> This is based on earlier discussions of how WTP Event Request serves
as 
> an implicit keep alive mechanism for the WTP. I believe this
observation 
> can be made explicit in this section.
> 
>  
> 
> I suggest the following after the 1^st paragraph of Section 9.5;
> 
>  
> 
> "The exchange of WTP Event Request serves as an implicit keep alive 
> mechanism for the WTP. The arrival of a WTP Event Request message at
the 
> AC indicates the WTP is operational. In cases where WTP Event Request
is 
> not exchanged, explicit keep alive is used (see Section 7)."
> 
>  
> 
> The current text in Section 7 refers to maintaining the control 
> communication channel, whereas the suggestion above refers to the WTP
as 
> a whole.
> Comments?
> Saravanan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
> http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap
> 
> Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap

_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap

Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap