Capwap Mailing List: Re: Issue 182: Use of Descriptor Type and AC Information Typeis unclear

[Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) (pcalhoun]

I am including the new proposed text which basically adds the sentence
below to both the WTP Descriptor and AC Information message elements:

<proposed text>
4.6.1.  AC Descriptor
[...]
      AC Information Type:   Vendor specific encoding of AC information.
         The following enumerated values are supported.  Both the
         Hardware and Software Version sub-elements MUST be included in
         the AC Descriptor message element.  The values listed below are
         used in conjunction with the AC Information Vendor Identifier
         field, whose value MUST be set to zero (0).  This field,
         combined with the AC Information Vendor Identifier set to a
         non-zero (0) value, allows vendors to use a private namespace.

4.6.40.  WTP Descriptor
[...]
      Descriptor Type:   The Descriptor Type field identifies the data
         being encoded.  The CAPWAP protocol defines the following
         values, and each of these types identify whether their presence
         is mandatory or optional.  The values listed below are used in
         conjunction with the Descriptor Vendor Identifier field, whose
         value MUST be set to zero (0).  This field, combined with the
         Descriptor Vendor Identifier set to a non-zero (0) value,
         allows vendors to use a private namespace.
</proposed text>

PatC

-----Original Message-----
From: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) 
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 5:13 PM
To: capwap [at] frascone.com
Cc: Yong Zhang
Subject: [Capwap] Issue 182: Use of Descriptor Type and AC Information
Typeis unclear

All,

Yong Zhang brought up the following to my attention on draft -12. I have
created issue 182 to track this. The issue has to do with the fact that
he finds the language describing how the Descriptor Type (4.6.40) and AC
Information Type (4.6.1) fields are used, in conjunction with the Vendor
ID field. In an e-mail exchange with Yong, he found that the text in the
IANA considerations section made it much clearer, but I wonder if we
could pull some text from the IANA Considerations to the actual field
description.

The text currently reads:
<existing text>
      AC Information Type:   Vendor specific encoding of AC information.
         The following enumerated values are supported.  Both the
         Hardware and Software Version sub-elements MUST be included in
         the AC Descriptor message element.  The values listed below are
         used in conjunction with the AC Information Vendor Identifier
         field, whose value MUST be set to zero (0).
</existing text>

I would propose adding the following sentence:

<new sentence>
         This field, combined with the AC Information Vendor ID set
         to a non-zero (0) value, allows vendors to use a private
namespace.
</new sentence>

The same sentence would be added to the WTP Descriptor field.

PatC
_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap

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