Subject: [Capwap] Questions regarding LWAPP draft v03

From: "BOURDON Gilles RD-CORE-ISS" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 11:18:26 +0100

Hi all,

I read the LWAPP draft, and I have questions/comments (maybe already
addressed, but I did not find any trace of that):

1- The Control Message format (section 4.2.1) indicates the message type
is 8-bit encoded. Don't you think this numbering space could be too
small, for further extensions? The section might also mention how this
numbering space is managed (IANA?). Same thing for section 4.2.2.
(Message Element Format), refering to section 16 which is empty.
2- I know that the evaluation team asked for an extension of the Type
field. It might seem obvious, but I think that having its length equal
to the Element ID field of the Vendor-Specific element would make sense.
3- I cannot figure out why Clear Config Indication is the only message
that doesn't need acknowledgment from the WTP. Any particular reason?

Gilles.
_________________________________________________________________
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: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 11:35:16 -0800

<PRC> Created tracker entry 44

2- I know that the evaluation team asked for an extension of the Type
field. It might seem obvious, but I think that having its length equal
to the Element ID field of the Vendor-Specific element would make sense.
<PRC> This request already exists by the eval team, and has already been
taken care of.

3- I cannot figure out why Clear Config Indication is the only message
that doesn't need acknowledgment from the WTP. Any particular reason?
<PRC> Indication messages are acknowledged at the reliable link layer,
and no response is required.

Pat Calhoun
CTO, Wireless Networking Business Unit
Cisco Systems

---

From: "BOURDON Gilles RD-CORE-ISS" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 10:58:10 +0100

About point #3.. Section 7.8 still confuses me: the Reset Request message is mentionned in this section, so one might think that Clear Config Indication is a message element embedded in Reset Request... However, Clear Config Indication is a plain control message as stated in section 4.2.1.1, and I still can't figure out how it is acknowledged... Could you elaborate a little bit more on this one?

Thanks,

Gilles.

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Envoyé : vendredi 20 janvier 2006 20:35
À : BOURDON Gilles RD-CORE-ISS; [email-masked]
Objet : RE: [Capwap] Questions regarding LWAPP draft v03

1- The Control Message format (section 4.2.1) indicates the message type is 8-bit encoded. Don't you think this numbering space could be too small, for further extensions? The section might also mention how this numbering space is managed (IANA?). Same thing for section 4.2.2.
(Message Element Format), refering to section 16 which is empty.
<PRC> Created tracker entry 44

2- I know that the evaluation team asked for an extension of the Type field. It might seem obvious, but I think that having its length equal to the Element ID field of the Vendor-Specific element would make sense.
<PRC> This request already exists by the eval team, and has already been taken care of.

3- I cannot figure out why Clear Config Indication is the only message that doesn't need acknowledgment from the WTP. Any particular reason?
<PRC> Indication messages are acknowledged at the reliable link layer, and no response is required.

Pat Calhoun