Subject: Re: [Capwap] Issue 176: The WTP Static IPv4 Address should not have theStatic bit

From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 11:28:10 -0700

Given the lack of responses, I will assume there is no interest in
fixing this 
issue and will reject this issue.

Pat Calhoun
CTO, Wireless Networking Business Unit
Cisco Systems

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) 
> Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 7:16 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Capwap] Issue 176: The WTP Static IPv4 Address 
> should not have theStatic bit
> 
> 28) The WTP Static IPv4 Address should not have the Static 
> bit, but instead state that 0.0.0.0 means a static address is 
> not to be used.
> 
> <PRC> Same comment as previous. I would like to solicit from 
> the WG on whether addressing this comment would really change 
> the quality of the specification. If it's a change for the 
> sake of changing, I would prefer to reject the comment.
>  
> 
> Pat Calhoun
> CTO, Wireless Networking Business Unit
> Cisco Systems
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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