Re: [ANCP] Splitting multicast from protocol doc

I only actually saw one against for splitting the mcast text from the
ANCP protocol spec. However, I accept that it may not be that easy to
split it out.

I am fine with the approach below, so long as the ANCP base protocol
spec can stand alone and that it is not necessary to implement the mcast
spec to support the base mcast functions in the ANCP protocol spec.

Matthew

________________________________

From: Wojciech Dec (wdec) [mailto:wdec@cisco.com] 
Sent: 08 June 2009 12:19
To: Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch); BOCCI Matthew; Maglione Roberta
Cc: ancp@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [ANCP] Splitting multicast from protocol doc

Hi Francois,

let's go with the this approach. Some delicate surgery is needed on the
ancp-protocol draft to move the mcast specific parts to the new ID, but
leave the base protocol parts that have been defined (or re-defined) as
part of the mcast work in the base protocol spec. A rough line to draw
would be:

- ANCP base header definitions, extensions -> ancp-protocol

- Mcast capability negotiation, messages, message flows, error codes ->
mcast ID

There are some provisioning aspects of the mcast use-cases (eg the
lists) that likely could apply to the wider provisioning use-case, so
this could go either way.

It would seem like having the editors of both docs discuss the what goes
where would be a good next step.

Regards,

Woj.

________________________________

	From: Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch) 
	Sent: 08 June 2009 12:39
	To: BOCCI Matthew; Wojciech Dec (wdec)
	Cc: ancp@ietf.org
	Subject: Re: [ANCP] Splitting multicast from protocol doc

	Matthew, Woj, 

	We had a few responses to this proposal. What is the final
decision?

	Thanks

	Francois

	On 31 Mar 2009, at 22:21, Francois Le Faucheur IMAP wrote:

	support. 

	Francois

	On 31 Mar 2009, at 17:46, BOCCI Matthew wrote:

	There was a proposal at the last IETF to take the multicast text
from draft-ietf-ancp-protocol-05 and merge it with
draft-lefaucheur-ancp-mc-extensions-01.

	We would thus have two protocol drafts: 

	draft-ietf-ancp-protocol : Containing the solutions for the
Topology discovery, line configuration and OAM use cases 
	Multicast extensions draft: Containing the transactional
multicast solution and all of the content of draft-lefaucheur 

	This would allow us to move forward with WG LC on the basic use
case solutions, and also keep all of the multicast extensions in a
single draft.

	Please can you indicate to the list whether you support this
proposal. 

	Regards 

	Matthew 

	_______________________________________________
	ANCP mailing list
	ANCP@ietf.org
	https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ancp