Subject: Re: [Capwap] New Issue 138: Inconsistent values for enable/disable in section 4.6.34

From: "Yong Zhang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 17:38:55 -0700

This change is OK for me.

Yong

------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 13:05:14 -0700
From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [Capwap] New Issue 138: Inconsistent values for
       enable/disable in       section 4.6.34
To: <[email-masked]>
Message-ID:
       <[email-masked]>
Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="us-ascii"

All,

Yong has raised another issue, but I'm not sure that this one will have
the required
consensus as it will break compatibility with existing implementations
that conform to
-10.

Section 4.6.34 uses 1 for disable and 2 for enable, while the rest of
the spec uses the
inverse. This inconsistency could be confusing for people using
#DEFINEs. Is there
agreement to inversing these values, with the understanding that it
would create a
backward compatibility issue with -10?

PatC

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

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

---

From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2008 08:53:58 -0700

One possible optimization, which is editorial but world provide more consistency, is to define CAPWAP-ENABLE and CAPWAP-DISABLE and use that terminology throughout the docs.

PatC

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Margaret Wasserman [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent:	Sunday, July 06, 2008 06:34 AM Pacific Standard Time
To:	Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)
Cc:	[email-masked]
Subject:	Re: [Capwap] New Issue 138: Inconsistent values for enable/disable in section 4.6.34

Personally, I am a bit queasy about the idea of swapping these values  
in a new version of the draft.  However, I agree that the current  
situation is far from ideal...

So, I do support this change, but I wish we could come up with a  
better answer.

Margaret