Capwap Mailing List: Re: Fwd: CONSENSUS CONFIRMATION: #138, #217, #247, #248, #249, #250, #251 & #252

[Sudhanshu (sudhanshu.ietf]

Please see my inline comments.

-----Original Message-----
From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:margaret [at] thingmagic.com] 


> 248 Both IPv4 and IPv6 Addresses not required.
[Suds] Reiterate my previous position, sending both addresses IPv4 and IPv6
should not be precluded, especially in the "Discovery Response". 

> 217 What is frame format with WTP encrypts/decrypts?

No one objected to including the previously-agreed fix in the new  
document.

[Suds] As I said in my previous response, proposed resolution should also
address figure 3. 
        "Protected" field will be edited by both AC/WTP.

> There were also four substantive issues discussed by the group:
>

> 249 UDP-Lite as optional transport for CAPWAP

There was no disagreement with the editors' proposed resolution.

[Suds] I disagree with this assessment. As the issues subject says, UDP-lite
should be optional, but the proposed solution does not make it clear. UDP
and UDP-lite both option should be valid for IPv6.

> 251 Retransmission of control packets is not exponential

There was no disagreement with the editors' proposed resolution.

[Suds] I am not very clear behind this timer getting tied with the echo
interval. Editor(s) please comment.