Capwap Mailing List: Re: CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T37

[Romascanu, Dan (Dan) (dromasca]

OK with me. 

Dan


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun [at] cisco.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 7:25 PM
> To: capwap [at] frascone.com
> Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T37
> 
> All,
> 
> Here is the IESG Review Comment:
> 
>    T37 - Section 8.1 - If the WTP opts to save the 
> configuration locally
> - how is this 
>    option selected? Is this a local WTP configurations issue?
>    If so please specify
> 
> There are a couple of ways of dealing with this one:
> 1. The simplest way of dealing with this would be to make 
> this an implementation decision.
> 2. Allow the AC to configure this behavior. However, this 
> would require new message elements, additional text in the 
> configuration request messages, etc.
> 
> Given that in the end, it really doesn't matter which way the 
> WTP decides to behave, I would prefer we go with option one 
> and minimize the changes to the spec at this point. 
> Therefore, my proposed text is:
> 
> <text>
> 8.1.  Configuration Consistency
> 
>    The CAPWAP protocol provides flexibility in how WTP 
> configuration is
>    managed.  A WTP can behave in one of two ways, which is
>    implementation specific:
> </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
>