[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:By the way, this seems like a no-obj to me. I don't thinkit would beuseful to nit-pick it.I no-obbed but did pick a few nits in the tracker (there are a few things I find curious, but non-blocking).I had been following the wg earlier, and one thing to note is:Protocol Requirement: Any WTP or WLAN controller vendor or any person MUST be able to implement the CAPWAP protocol from the specification itself and by that it is required that all such implementations do interoperate.Since this is a basic requirement of all IETF standards, why is itlisted? Some WG participants wanted to allow proprietary CAPWAP protocols, but allow them to somehow functionally equivalent. I know this doesn't, then provide fora standard solution, but the above text had to be added to ensure that everyone understood that the WG was going to make a fully standardizedand interoperable solution.
Understood, although we do presume that all participants have
read RFC 2026, which requires interoperability... It's a bit sad
if such reminders are necessary.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
