Capwap Mailing List: Re: Issue 153: Can "additional" message elements be added to amessage?

[Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) (pcalhoun]

All,

I made the mistake of opening a new issue for this, so I would
appreciate if folks that care about this issue comment on my proposed
text for issue 239 - send last Friday.

Thanks,

Pat Calhoun
CTO, Wireless Networking Business Unit
Cisco Systems

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:margaret [at] thingmagic.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 5:39 PM
> To: Sudhanshu
> Cc: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap [at] frascone.com
> Subject: Re: [Capwap] Issue 153: Can "additional" message 
> elements be added to amessage?
> 
> 
> On Jan 25, 2007, at 3:38 PM, Sudhanshu wrote:
> > - If a request is received, and a message element is 
> missing (that is 
> > specified in the RFC), then the request is NOT processed 
> and a failure 
> > response is returned with a new Result Code (Missing 
> message element).
> >
> > [Suds] I think "specified" should be changed to "required"
> 
> I'm not sure what word we should use here, but I think I see 
> the point that you are making.  We would only send a failure 
> response if one of the "must contain" message elements was 
> missing, not if one of the "may contain" message elements 
> wasn't present...  So perhaps we could say "(that is 
> specified as a mandatory message element for this operation 
> in the RFC)", or something like that?
> 
> Margaret
>