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

Hi,

I think indeed that the document may be more explicit that it is only for AN and not for NAS.  However, introducing new terminology in a MIB document is the wrong place.  It is indeed a client-server protocol, but saying that this is a client MIB while "client" has never been defined before, is not going to make it clearer.

About the capabilities: it is a MIB for only RFC 6320.  If other documents introduce new functionality like PON or multicast, then this requires a new MIB module that also defines objects to enable and disable the capabilities of that functionality.

regards,
Stefaan

-----Original Message-----
From: ancp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ancp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tom Taylor
Sent: maandag 18 februari 2013 20:49
To: Wojciech Dec (wdec)
Cc: ancp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ANCP] comments on draft-ietf-ancp-mib-an-10

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