Capwap Mailing List: Re: CAPWAP IESG Issue T5

[Romascanu, Dan (Dan) (dromasca]

OK with me, with the terminology suggested by David Nelson - say clearly
these are enumerated values.  

Dan


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun [at] cisco.com] 
> Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 6:36 PM
> To: capwap [at] frascone.com
> Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T5
> 
> Here is the IESG Issue:
> 
>    T5 - Section 4.3, pag 47 - As I understand the 5 bit field 
> encodes 32 possible 
>    wireless bindings (i.e. it's not a bit mask). If true it 
> would be good to make this 
>    explicit. My question is whether there is any reason to 
> start with value 1 and not 
>    with value 0? Assuming this is already deployed, will 0 be 
> a value to use, or does 
>    it have any special significance?
> 
> No, this is not a bitmask. I'm not actually sure how to 
> explicitely state it isn't a bitmask, because in my mind any 
> field is not a bitmask unless it is explicitely stated, so I 
> will use the term numerical.
> Further, there is no reason why zero cannot be used, so I'll 
> renumber the fields to start at zero.
> 
> So I am proposing the following text:
> 
> <text>
>    WBID:  A 5 bit numerical field which is the wireless binding
>       identifier.  The numerical identifier will indicate the type
>       of wireless packet associated with the radio.  The following
>       numerical values are defined:
> 
>       0 -  IEEE 802.11
>       1 -  IEEE 802.16
>       2 -  EPCGlobal
> </text>
> 
> PatC
> _________________________________________________________________
> To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
> http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap
> 
> Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap
>