IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ANCP] comments on draft-ietf-ancp-mib-an-10

Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com> Mon, 18 February 2013 19:48 UTC

Return-Path: <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ancp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ancp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26B3021F8B48 for <ancp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 11:48:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.124
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.124 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.172, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AQbsMkzratCy for <ancp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 11:48:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-x22a.google.com (mail-ie0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAE3E21F8943 for <ancp@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 11:48:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f170.google.com with SMTP id c11so7683501ieb.15 for <ancp@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 11:48:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:x-antivirus:x-antivirus-status; bh=1RKs7ZoJTyVHir1l+KWzWtdHwlEGh+Fvf+uDLDl0Fuc=; b=Yc1VlFUqRlkN6KuzRIu7jhps6JABO0CnuD2qXMEof/UIJboH8VOSK3/Eg/aE3cjr2i H8FEzxu//ASEggWwgFXxK2cos4hI3RGiIi4y7MIuXKEMaRVAdwcKisDD8diy+esR4WEc 7HakNeb2a77lDbLKssRuI6m07vBPedMC28udkL5uG+MR8WJrSO1cGc9Gn/yDznez0rJV eBUSjwBBTXP55QPG0TWviR46auQtB/Tgfa40ohPboPMadsfsnkYAvhW1KucvjaVuaGzX OJjctAzRDrbxfWdGqcwuwkYTHcHcT5rMQbyliTu8SpCzEKvupM20yLa6abtjeLds19sQ +pLg==
X-Received: by 10.50.46.202 with SMTP id x10mr7369018igm.87.1361216934274; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 11:48:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (dsl-207-112-82-191.tor.primus.ca. [207.112.82.191]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id dm10sm9080465igb.3.2013.02.18.11.48.52 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 18 Feb 2013 11:48:53 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <512285A4.5040009@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 14:48:52 -0500
From: Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Wojciech Dec (wdec)" <wdec@cisco.com>
References: <19F346EB777BEE4CB77DA1A2C56F20B3223C0F@xmb-aln-x05.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <19F346EB777BEE4CB77DA1A2C56F20B3223C0F@xmb-aln-x05.cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 130218-0, 18/02/2013), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Cc: "ancp@ietf.org" <ancp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [ANCP] comments on draft-ietf-ancp-mib-an-10
X-BeenThere: ancp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 18 Feb 2013 19:48:55 -0000

That is, it applies to the Access Node side.

On 18/02/2013 11:18 AM, Wojciech Dec (wdec) wrote:
> Yes, and in retrospect its rather unfortunate, since it is a client-server
> protocol with the functions in AN-NAS respectively.
> The main point though is that the ANCP MIB draft does not apply to the
> server side.
>
> Regards,
> Woj..
>
> On 18/02/2013 16:52, "Tom Taylor" <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Could I point out that the RFC 6320 does not talk about clients and
>> servers? It talks about the AN and the NAS. And either side can initiate
>> transactions, depending on the transaction, so I think the client-server
>> terminology would actually be confusing. Sorry, I should have noted this
>> point earlier.
>>
>> On 18/02/2013 8:50 AM, Moti Morgenstern wrote:
...

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email