Capwap Mailing List: Issue 217

[Abhijit Choudhury (achoudhu) (achoudhu]

I agree with Sudhanshu on Issue 217. Fig. 3 needs to be made
consistent with the accepted text.

In Fig 3. in the bindings doc, we need to replace

        Protected               AC

with

        Protected               WTP/AC


Here is the updated figure:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
                        MAC header field        Location
                   Frame Control:
                           Version                 AC
                           ToDS                    AC
                           FromDS                  AC
                           Type                    AC
                           SubType                 AC
                           MoreFrag                WTP/AC
                           Retry                   WTP
                           Pwr Mgmt                -
                           MoreData                WTP
                           Protected               WTP/AC 
                           Order                   AC
                   Duration:                       WTP
                   Address 1:                      AC
                   Address 2:                      AC
                   Address 3:                      AC
                   Sequence Ctrl:                  WTP
                   Address 4:                      AC
                   QoS Control:                    AC
                   Frame Body:                     AC
                   FCS:                            WTP

       Figure 3: Population of the IEEE 802.11 MAC header Fields for
                              Downlink Frames 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
------

Thanks,
Abhijit
 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Sudhanshu [mailto:sudhanshu.ietf [at] gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 12:04 PM
To: 'Margaret Wasserman'; 'capwap'
Subject: Re: [Capwap] Fwd: CONSENSUS CONFIRMATION: #138, #217, #247,
#248,#249, #250, #251 & #252

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.


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

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