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

Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com> Wed, 04 December 2013 21:40 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 6B81A1ADF2E for <ancp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 13:40:38 -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 RgUhm57pMXiw for <ancp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 13:40:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-x229.google.com (mail-ie0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24F971ACC81 for <ancp@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Dec 2013 13:40:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f169.google.com with SMTP id e14so28418021iej.0 for <ancp@ietf.org>; Wed, 04 Dec 2013 13:40:32 -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:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=m4CIDF5FsGVQdJNild1PbH5/axKbdjGrJEaTY4AkUeQ=; b=lTT2EqDg467vDNy0v7Psj4ea2831yyZR43j5e75nhwRf4AQOvQNjgw0980zBZb9qxy 33k8MjUSp/0n4lBKV4+dOYGMKil0ApfcCtu09itOOeE35qySNAaBtN3bvqgcNQH9vHRT 301xjo2SmEwI71+Ejz1+Obe3flXGsoBMcITTj31iBhGPpgFmDxyhaXjocf3H37a8yK2l hPXoFgpMICLYArnvRMf/ZBeTSgNbk2Jm7CA4w6roApX7FhSahSUhXBDf/Qr/b/JG7EAT wFao+ll2n+FwhVKoFuQG3DW5CxeAhbQ6KlwWcQxngaSjVtrOeKdkwm/26wlO5PAQkF02 Crkw==
X-Received: by 10.50.87.36 with SMTP id u4mr3019325igz.40.1386193232794; Wed, 04 Dec 2013 13:40:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.65] ([64.56.250.4]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id da14sm6485026igc.1.2013.12.04.13.40.31 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 04 Dec 2013 13:40:32 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <529FA14C.1090305@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2013 16:40:28 -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: "Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch)" <flefauch@cisco.com>
References: <529C5F80.2000809@gmail.com> <9156506C-A97E-47B1-9ACC-A5A06BB556A7@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <9156506C-A97E-47B1-9ACC-A5A06BB556A7@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "ancp@ietf.org" <ancp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [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: Wed, 04 Dec 2013 21:40:38 -0000

Sounds good to me. I won't bother changing TLV or command names, since 
the current ones work if I adopt your suggested terminology.

Aside from the MAC privacy issue, I think this takes care of any open 
questions I had. I'll update the draft. One possibility for the device 
identifier is to specify it as such in the TLV, leaving it up to the 
operator to configure a local mapping on the AN between MAC address and 
device identifier.

Tom

On 04/12/2013 10:49 AM, Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch) wrote:
> Hello Tom,
>
> I think it is a good idea to provide a definition for the two concepts (policy-based admission vs resource-based admission).
>
> With respect to the actual names for the two concepts, I am very uncomfortable in using a name that abreviates to "CAC" for the policy-based admission control because "CAC" (abbreviation of "Connection Admission Control")  has been extensively used in the industry for many years and generally implied either (i) resource-based admission or (ii) a combination of policy-based admission and resource-based admission (and never just policy-based admission).
>
> My preference would be to just always use non-abbreviated terms. I'd probably go with "policy-based admission" and "resource-based admission", but can go with some variations of these such as "policy-based admission control" and "resource-based admission control (or "bandwidth-based admission control").
>
>
> I had trouble parsing the last sentence of the definition. I'd suggest
> s/The NAS controls which procedures are performed at the Access Node and which by itself/The NAS controls which procedures are performed by the Access Node and which are performed by itself/
>
> HTH
>
> Francois
>
>
> On 2 Dec 2013, at 11:22, Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> ANCP mailing list
>> ANCP@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ancp
>
>