Subject: Re: [Capwap] Proposed resolution to issue 127 - usage of the session IDfield

From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 10:42:08 -0700

I disagree with this change, and would ask that the editor explain the
rationale/need for the Session ID in the CAPWAP header when it is part
of the DTLS payload. This will be encrypted, and I therefore fail to
understand what its purpose is. The DTLS session itself should be
sufficient, no?

Pat Calhoun
CTO, Wireless Networking Business Unit
Cisco Systems

________________________________

	From: Michael Montemurro [mailto:[email-masked]] 
	Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2006 12:03 PM
	To: capwap
	Subject: [Capwap] Proposed resolution to issue 127 - usage of
the session IDfield

	I propose we adopt David's proposed resolution and add session
ID back into the header as described in tracker.
	 
	Cheers,
	 
	Mike

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

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