Capwap Mailing List: Re: CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T28

[Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) (pcalhoun]

Ok, closing issue 69.

PatC 

-----Original Message-----
From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca [at] avaya.com] 
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 11:07 AM
To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap [at] frascone.com
Subject: RE: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T28

OK with me. 

(although I am not crazy about fields that carry vendor specific
information in standards because they create no multivendor
interoperability)

Dan
  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun [at] cisco.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 9:02 PM
> To: capwap [at] frascone.com
> Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T28
> 
> All,
>  
> Here is the IESG Review Comment:
> 
>    T28 - Section 4.6.39 - I do not understand the semantics of the 
> value field - what
>    does 'The value associated with the vendor specific element' mean? 
> Is this one byte
>    as the diagram shows, or variable length as indicated by the fact 
> that the length
>    of the message shows >=7? If variable length what is the max 
> length?
> 
> Here is my proposed changes, and note tha I picked 2048 octets as the 
> maximum length for the vendor specific info:
> 
> <text>
> 4.6.39.  Vendor Specific Payload
> [...]
> 
>    Data:   Variable length vendor specific information, whose
>            contents and format are proprietary and understood
>            based on the Element ID field. This field MUST NOT
>            exceed 2048 octets.
> </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
>