Capwap Mailing List: Re: CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T16

[Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) (pcalhoun]

OK, closing issue 57.

PatC 

-----Original Message-----
From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:dromasca [at] avaya.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 10:59 AM
To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou); capwap [at] frascone.com
Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T16

OK with me. 

Dan
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun [at] cisco.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 8:08 PM
> To: capwap [at] frascone.com
> Subject: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Review Comment T16
> 
> All,
> 
> Here is the IESG Review Comment:
> 
>    T16 - the document is not consistent in defining which one of the 
> configuration
>    objects is to be saved in non-volatile memory. For example in 4.6.7

> it is mentioned
>    that this message element information is not expected to be saved 
> in non-volatile
>    memory - if this is an exception what is the rule?
> 
> Yes, it is an exception to the rule. However, to make this point 
> clear, I have added text to section 4.6:
> 
> <text>
> 4.6.  CAPWAP Protocol Message Elements [...]
>    Unless otherwise specified, any configuration information sent by 
> the
>    AC to the WTP MAY be saved to non-volatile storage (see section 8.1
>    for more information).
> </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
> 
_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap

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