Subject: [Capwap] Proposed Resolution for Issue 168

From: "Pat Calhoun (pacalhou)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 09:44:52 -0800

All,

Issue 168 claims that the Session ID field is unnecessary and should be
removed from the protocol. We discussed this topic and agreed that the
Session ID field was required to handle NAT traversal. I have just sent
a proposed resolution for issue 127, which claimed the need for this
field. Therefore, I would propose we reject issue 168 on the basis that
the Session ID field is in fact required for the protocol.

Pat Calhoun
CTO, Wireless Networking Business Unit
Cisco Systems
_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap

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