Capwap Mailing List: Re: CAPWAP IESG Issue T5

[Romascanu, Dan (Dan) (dromasca]

Yes, I can live with this. 

Dan
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) [mailto:pcalhoun [at] cisco.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 4:42 AM
> To: Margaret Wasserman
> Cc: capwap [at] frascone.com
> Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T5
> 
> OK, again I need you and Dan to agree. I will make whatever 
> change is necessary.
> 
> Dan are you ok with zero being marked as reserved?
> 
> PatC 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:margaret [at] thingmagic.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 8:50 AM
> To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)
> Cc: capwap [at] frascone.com
> Subject: Re: [Capwap] CAPWAP IESG Issue T5
> 
> 
> Hi Pat,
> 
> I agree with your answer -- this is not a bitmask.
> 
> But, I'd personally prefer that we _not_ renumber the fields at this
> point.  If we do renumber them, this will make -11 
> incompatible with -10
> in a way that I don't feel is justified by the benefit.  Instead, I'd
> personally prefer that you list 0 as "reserved for future use"  
> and make it clear in the IANA considerations section that 
> value 4-31 are
> available for IANA allocation.
> 
> There are already implementations of CAPWAP, and EPCglobal is planning
> an interoperability event in July (for the base CAPWAP spec and the
> EPCglobal DCI specification), so I think it is too late to start
> renumbering fields without an important technical reason to do so.
> 
> Margaret
> 
> 
> 
> On Jun 16, 2008, at 11:35 AM, Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) wrote:
> 
> > 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
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>