RE: [L2CP] Advantages of L2CP (was: Revised WG Charter Draft)
"Sanjay Wadhwa" <swadhwa@juniper.net> Wed, 05 April 2006 16:22 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FRAmW-0005TC-Dm; Wed, 05 Apr 2006 12:22:56 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FRAmV-0005T2-3v for l2cp@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Apr 2006 12:22:55 -0400
Received: from borg.juniper.net ([207.17.137.119]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FRAmT-0006Tm-LB for l2cp@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Apr 2006 12:22:55 -0400
Received: from unknown (HELO proton.jnpr.net) ([10.10.2.37]) by borg.juniper.net with ESMTP; 05 Apr 2006 09:22:53 -0700
X-BrightmailFiltered: true
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.04,90,1144047600"; d="scan'208"; a="541195689:sNHT31013808"
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [L2CP] Advantages of L2CP (was: Revised WG Charter Draft)
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 12:22:49 -0400
Message-ID: <9BD5D7887235424FA97DFC223CAE3C2803B754F2@proton.jnpr.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [L2CP] Advantages of L2CP (was: Revised WG Charter Draft)
Thread-Index: AcZYwGwX8jpLuXqwROy4IOnxIQFUKQACD5DA
From: Sanjay Wadhwa <swadhwa@juniper.net>
To: "Busschbach, Peter B (Peter)" <busschbach@lucent.com>, "Wojciech Dec (wdec)" <wdec@cisco.com>, l2cp@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: dbb8771284c7a36189745aa720dc20ab
Cc:
X-BeenThere: l2cp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Layer 2 Control Protocol Discussion List <l2cp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2cp>, <mailto:l2cp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/l2cp>
List-Post: <mailto:l2cp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2cp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2cp>, <mailto:l2cp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: l2cp-bounces@ietf.org
Peter Please see inline.. >-----Original Message----- >From: Busschbach, Peter B (Peter) [mailto:busschbach@lucent.com] >Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 10:51 AM >To: 'Wojciech Dec (wdec)'; l2cp@ietf.org >Subject: [L2CP] Advantages of L2CP (was: Revised WG Charter Draft) > > >Hi Woj, > >To address the second half of our email exchange: > >I did notice the sentence that addressed Dave's concern. >However, my point was that the charter claims that L2CP will >have a specific benefit ("avoiding complex cross-organization >interactions"), while it is far from clear that in this >respect L2CP is any better than other solutions. [Sanjay] All that the charter is saying is that L2C work will undertake use-cases that aim to simplify service management by avoiding complex cross-organization interactions. It is a nobel goal that L2C is striving to achieve.. What is wrong with that ? This is irrespective of wether other solutions can provide this or not. So, as an example, charter for a new dynamic routing protocol might say that it will strive to achieve fast network-wide convergence (which is a clear benefit over static routing). But, obviously it is ok for multiple dynamic routing protocols to work towards this goal and have this explicitly stated in their charter. -Sanjay >I believe that the charter should avoid stating benefits that >are debatable and therefore suggest that the text that I >quoted in my first email be deleted from the charter. > >Peter > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Wojciech Dec (wdec) [mailto:wdec@cisco.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 7:34 AM >> To: Busschbach, Peter B (Peter); l2cp@ietf.org >> Subject: RE: [L2CP] Re: Revised WG Charter Draft >> >> >> Hi Peter, >> >> To address 1) we have put in the following statement in the charter >> which you may have not noticed. >> >> "The protocol design will not preclude other uses of L2CP." >> >> WRT 2) we do not lay any claims to how different operators structure >> their data bases, and some are probably better at doing it >> than others. >> However it does seem to be a fairly common problem that the >> info related >> to a single subscriber's network service needs to be farmed >> out and fed >> into numerous custom built manager systems besides also the >Radius DB. >> The idea is to allow a mechanism, through the use of L2CP, >to have the >> Access node be provided with such information as and when >> needed by the >> NAS which in turn accesses a common repository like a Radius DB. >> Dave's statement was, I believe, in relation to different >> subject; that >> of a wholesale-retail operation, where indeed the >relationship is more >> complex. However we do plan on addressing this as evidenced by the >> statement in the charter: >> "L2CP will address security aspects of the control protocol, >including >> the trust model between NAS nodes and access nodes." >> >> Regards, >> Woj. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Busschbach, Peter B (Peter) [mailto:busschbach@lucent.com] >> Sent: 04 April 2006 21:23 >> To: 'l2cp@ietf.org' >> Subject: [L2CP] Re: Revised WG Charter Draft >> >> I have two comments on the revised charter. >> >> 1) At the end of the BOF, Mark Townsley limited the scope of the >> working group. Unfortunately, this is not captured very >clearly in the >> meeting minutes. The critical sentence in the meeting minutes is "DSL >> but good engineers ...". I.e. the focus of the WG is to solve a >> particular issue in DSL access networks, but as good >> engineers we should >> not preclude the use of the protocol for other applications. >> >> I don't see the limited scope reflected in the new charter. >> >> 2) Under "Line Configuration". the charter says: >> >> > L2CP is intended to simplify the OSS infrastructure for service >> > management, allowing subscriber-related service data to be >> maintained >> > in fewer repositories (e.g. RADIUS server back-end database) while >> > avoiding complex cross-organization interactions. >> >> I don't understand how L2CP leads to fewer Radius server >back end data >> bases. I also don't understand how L2CP avoids cross-organizational >> interactions. There seems to be an assumption that it is ok >> for L2CP to >> cross organizational boundaries but not for other protocols. I don't >> think that is correct. At the BOF, Dave Allan pointed out >> that this is >> one of the more difficult problems to solve. Therefore, I >believe that >> this text should be removed from the charter. >> >> Peter >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> L2cp mailing list >> L2cp@ietf.org >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2cp >> > >_______________________________________________ >L2cp mailing list >L2cp@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2cp > _______________________________________________ L2cp mailing list L2cp@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2cp
- [L2CP] Advantages of L2CP (was: Revised WG Charte… Busschbach, Peter B (Peter)
- RE: [L2CP] Advantages of L2CP (was: Revised WG Ch… Sanjay Wadhwa
- RE: [L2CP] Advantages of L2CP (was: Revised WG Ch… Busschbach, Peter B (Peter)
- [L2CP] Wadhwa new draft 01- Encapsulation + Remod… Michel.Platnic
- [L2CP] RE: Wadhwa new draft 01- Encapsulation + R… Sanjay Wadhwa
- Re: [L2CP] RE: Wadhwa new draft 01- Encapsulation… stefaan.de_cnodder
- Re: [L2CP] RE: Wadhwa new draft 01- Encapsulation… Jakob Heitz
- RE: [L2CP] RE: Wadhwa new draft 01- Encapsulation… Sanjay Wadhwa
- RE: [L2CP] RE: Wadhwa new draft 01- Encapsulation Michel.Platnic
- Re: [L2CP] RE: Wadhwa new draft 01- Remode Id com… Michel.Platnic
- RE: [L2CP] RE: Wadhwa new draft 01- Encapsulation Derek Harkness
- Re: [L2CP] RE: Wadhwa new draft 01- Encapsulation stefaan.de_cnodder
- RE: [L2CP] RE: Wadhwa new draft 01- Encapsulation Derek Harkness
- Re: [L2CP] RE: Wadhwa new draft 01- Encapsulation stefaan.de_cnodder