Capwap Mailing List: Re: Reserved bits and fields

[Bob O'Hara (boohara) (boohara]

Yes, I still believe that there needs to be a specification for the
receiver to ignore any value received in the reserved bits and fields..

 -Bob
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) 
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 10:31 AM
To: Bob O'Hara (boohara); capwap [at] frascone.com
Subject: RE: [Capwap] Reserved bits and fields

Bob, based on the thread, do you still feel there are changes required
to the document?

Pat Calhoun
CTO, Wireless Networking Business Unit
Cisco Systems

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob O'Hara (boohara) 
> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 9:03 AM
> To: capwap [at] frascone.com
> Subject: [Capwap] Reserved bits and fields
> 
> I believe that we are overspecifying the use of the reserved 
> bits and fields in the draft.  For example, we place a 
> requirement on the transmitter that these bits and fields 
> MUST be zero ("All implementations complying with version 
> zero of this protocol MUST set these bits to zero.").  
> However, we do not specify any behavior by the receiver.  I 
> believe this is backwards.
> 
> Because the version field is available to all receivers of a 
> CAPWAP packet and that version field will unambiguously 
> identify all the reserved bits and fields, I believe we 
> should change the requirement to be that the receiver MUST 
> ignore any value received in a reserved bit or field.  This 
> way, should a noncompliant transmitter send something in 
> these fields, the receiver will not be confused by it.
> 
>  -Bob
> 
> Bob O'Hara
> Cisco Systems - WNBU
> 
> Phone:  +1 408 853 5513
> Mobile: +1 408 218 4025
>  
> _________________________________________________________________
> To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
> http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap
> 
> Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap
>