>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> By the way, this seems like a no-obj to me. I don't think >it would be >> useful 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 it listed? Some WG participants wanted to allow proprietary CAPWAP protocols, but allow them to somehow functionally equivalent. I know this doesn't, then provide for a standard solution, but the above text had to be added to ensure that everyone understood that the WG was going to make a fully standardized and interoperable solution. John _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
