[ANCP] CAC vs. Admission Control in draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions

Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com> Mon, 02 December 2013 10:23 UTC

Return-Path: <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ancp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ancp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 730441AE1CF for <ancp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 02:23:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lUQNC5FZgv3n for <ancp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 02:23:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-x22b.google.com (mail-ie0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A0B91AE17B for <ancp@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 02:22:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f171.google.com with SMTP id ar20so19818100iec.2 for <ancp@ietf.org>; Mon, 02 Dec 2013 02:22:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=HBsMpVvdir04XviioB8mIBmaLc9I+S4c00wrQ2iLOD0=; b=Cbl0hlysUfpFh1OF/awmMtODhI2ykOaSOIAYunSM94WYMtniEW2/xKOWo2FnO7Tbfy /9J4JiySgbWiq2ZTvb4pyXr8kKdtxTIWtcwlYPk0GAgCxdCv2q2g+4yzSG1EdC6bngiT zi+Fz61U5F7AhuIhTIY0Bg0HI5+OFMRg8B9eqKYMAwfyn0XtMQ04ZpO5MVkZVdcjumN8 KoWsRhyyqOHBdWeo5DHmG2JIOh92m1+2cwNJ6fWtRuQK5NjYOakrZUfUsrCpAxtzMLtq rgY1Yd8QW3z3AE5+SQq115pNzi519PzaP9egNZNuadqAcA+bjTKeqL7TPgQSwQLDwPkP d7uw==
X-Received: by 10.42.227.195 with SMTP id jb3mr37655718icb.27.1385979777791; Mon, 02 Dec 2013 02:22:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.65] ([64.56.250.4]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id l7sm65977313igx.2.2013.12.02.02.22.56 for <ancp@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 02 Dec 2013 02:22:57 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <529C5F80.2000809@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 05:22:56 -0500
From: Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "ancp@ietf.org" <ancp@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [ANCP] CAC vs. Admission Control in draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions
X-BeenThere: ancp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Access Node Control Protocol working group mailing list <ancp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ancp>, <mailto:ancp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ancp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ancp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ancp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ancp>, <mailto:ancp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 10:23:01 -0000

To clear up a misunderstanding that led to an AD comment, I propose to 
add the following definitions to the terminology section of the document:

<quote>

Within this document, the term "conditional access control (CAC)" refers 
to a procedure wherein a decision is made to allow or disallow a 
subscriber request for a new media flow based on the subscriber profile. 
"Admission control" is a separate procedure wherein the admission 
decision is based on the availability of bandwidth to serve the request. 
Both procedures are applied to make the final decision. The NAS controls 
which procedures are performed at the Access Node and which by itself 
based on the capabilities both devices support and the provisioning 
information it sends to the Access Node.

</quote>

Based on these definitions, some of the protocol elements in the 
document are misnamed. So far I have identified three cases:

-- Multicast Admission Control Message (which is sent from the
    AN to the NAS for grey-listed flows, hence is for CAC to start
    with)

-- White-List-CAC and MRepCtl-CAC TLVs, which are actually
    controlling whether the AN does admission control

Would it be OK to rename these, given that it doesn't affect the bits on 
the wire?

Of course, the first question is whether the proposed definitions are 
acceptable.

Tom Taylor