| RE: Another Way to Think about CAPWAP | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
|
From: Jim Murphy (jmurphy |
|
| Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 19:20:00 -0600 (CST) | |
<PRC> relationship between messages and sequencing in the CAPWAP model is no different than in the traditional (or should I say legacy? :) AP architecture. [JM] I understand that but bluetooth was mentioned. We've also discussed extensibility, but the IESG has informed us that it would be a really good idea to keep the scope of the WG smaller, solve the problem, and then if we were successful, extend to other technologies (if the market requires it). [JM] I'm OK with that. PatC
- RE: Another Way to Think about CAPWAP, (continued)
-
RE: Another Way to Think about CAPWAP Pat R. Calhoun, November 14 2003
- RE: Another Way to Think about CAPWAP Paulo Francisco, November 14 2003
-
RE: Another Way to Think about CAPWAP Pat R. Calhoun, November 14 2003
- Re: Another Way to Think about CAPWAP James Kempf, November 17 2003
- RE: Another Way to Think about CAPWAP Jim Murphy, November 14 2003
-
RE: Another Way to Think about CAPWAP Pat R. Calhoun, November 14 2003
- RE: Another Way to Think about CAPWAP Pat R. Calhoun, November 14 2003
- RE: Another Way to Think about CAPWAP Pat R. Calhoun, November 17 2003
- RE: Another Way to Think about CAPWAP Pat R. Calhoun, November 17 2003
- RE: Another Way to Think about CAPWAP Pat R. Calhoun, November 17 2003
Results generated by Tiger Technologies using MHonArc.