Capwap Mailing List: Re: Issue 244: Preamble Header Optimization moved from Wish List to Active Issues Database

[Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) (pcalhoun]

Jim,

I have a question about the proposal. One of the issues discussed two
IETF face to face meetings ago, was that before the version field was in
the clear, an attack could be mounted that would allow the changing of
the outer version. It is for this reason that the version field was
replicated in the capwap header, since it was protected by DTLS. 

The proposal in issue 244 suffers from the above problem.

I also presume that the "Reserved" field you show when DTLS is used
would include the actual DTLS header, correct? Or are you instead
proposing that the reserved field is optionally present, depending upon
the value of the type field.

PatC 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Murphy [mailto:jmurphy [at] trapezenetworks.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 5:10 PM
To: Dorothy.Gellert [at] nokia.com
Cc: margaret [at] thingmagic.com; rbonica [at] juniper.net; capwap [at] 
frascone.com
Subject: Re: [Capwap] Issue 244: Preamble Header Optimization moved from
Wish List to Active Issues Database

I support adopting the proposed optimizations.

Thanks,

Jim

Dorothy.Gellert [at] nokia.com wrote:
> Dear WG,
> 
> While reviewing the recently closed issues, it appears that Issue 244,

> Preamble Header Optimization, was mistakenly moved to the Wish list 
> without a clear decision from the WG to do so.  As a result, we'll be 
> moving issue 244 from the Wish list back into the "features" section 
> of the database, so that the WG can further discuss this issue and 
> decide what to do about it.  Issue 244 should be considered an open 
> issue against the CAPWAP drafts.
> 
> Issue 244 was discussed on the list under issue 224 before the interim

> meeting, during the Interim meeting and again further discussed on the

> WG list.  The proposed solution was sent to the list on Jan 31, 2007 
> in this message:  
> _http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap/msg04161.html_
> 
> It does not appear that the WG made a decision on this issue either 
> way, before it was moved to the Wish list, possibly because the 
> discussion was lost inside a discussion of related issues.
> 
> The WG should consider the proposed solution for Issue 244, and 
> discuss the following alternatives on the WG list:
> 
> 1) Adopt the proposed optimizations
> 2) Reject the proposed optimizations
> 3) Move Issue 244 to the Wish list (as this is an optimization, not a 
> bug fix) for future consideration.
> 
> 
> Best Regards,
> Mani, Margaret and Dorothy
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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