Subject: [Capwap] lwapp-dtls: section 2.1.2

From: Scott G Kelly <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 07:04:30 -0800

> 2.1.2.  Adding a Protocol Mux
> 
>    An alternative solution entails adding a protocol multiplexer module
>    between the packet input/output and the DTLS modules, and adding an
>    additional small associated LWAPP header between the UDP header and
>    the DTLS record layer header.  While this LWAPP header need only
>    contain a single bit to differentiate between control/data traffic,
>    alignment concerns suggest the header would most likely be either 32
>    or 64 bits in length.
> [NCW] Is the intent to allow for an authenticated but unencrypted header
 > to be transported?

No, it would be unauthenticated. I think the consensus so far is to go 
with ports, so this is probably a non-issue.

Scott

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

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