Subject: [Capwap] Issue 190: Use of Vendor ID in WTP Board Data Message Element confusing

From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 15:51:15 -0700

All,

Pasi identified the following comment through the WG Last Call:

     Section 4.6.39: I'd bet almost every implementor reading
     this will be confused by the Vendor Identifier field (and
     e.g. assume new sub-element numbers can be defined by the
     enterprise without asking IANA), since it's used in quite
     different way than in other parts of the protocol. I'd
     suggest explicitly saying something like "Note that the
     Vendor Identifier MUST NOT be zero, and all Board Data
     Type values are from a single global number space (not a
     vendor specific number space)."

I understand the issue raised, and agree it can be confusing since it
is used differently from other similar sub-elements. In this case, the
Vendor ID is ONLY used to represent the Manufacturer of the WTP. I would
therefore suggest two changes, one to the Vendor ID field, and one to
the description of the sub-element.

<proposed text>
4.6.39.  WTP Board Data
[...]
   Vendor Identifier:   A 32-bit value containing the IANA assigned "SMI
      Network Management Private Enterprise Codes", identifying the WTP
      hardware manufacturer.  The Vendor Identifier field MUST NOT be
      set to zero.

   Board Data Sub-Element:   The WTP Board Data message element contains
      multiple Board Data sub-elements, some of which are mandatory and
      some are optional, as described below.  The Board Data Type values
      are not extensible by vendors, and is therefore not coupled along
      with the Vendor Identifier field.  The Board Data sub-element has
      the following format:
</proposed text>

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

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