[L2CP] Re: Revised WG Charter Draft

"Busschbach, Peter B (Peter)" <busschbach@lucent.com> Tue, 04 April 2006 19:23 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FQr7Z-0007wi-2N; Tue, 04 Apr 2006 15:23:21 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FQr7X-0007uu-U6 for l2cp@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Apr 2006 15:23:19 -0400
Received: from hoemail2.lucent.com ([192.11.226.163]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FQr7X-0004jP-Np for l2cp@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Apr 2006 15:23:19 -0400
Received: from nj7460exch002h.wins.lucent.com (h135-17-42-35.lucent.com [135.17.42.35]) by hoemail2.lucent.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k34JNIA3016407 for <l2cp@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Apr 2006 14:23:18 -0500 (CDT)
Received: by nj7460exch002h.ho.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id <D80KST2N>; Tue, 4 Apr 2006 15:23:18 -0400
Message-ID: <B99995113B318D44BBE87DC50092EDA91D5A16F3@nj7460exch006u.ho.lucent.com>
From: "Busschbach, Peter B (Peter)" <busschbach@lucent.com>
To: "'l2cp@ietf.org'" <l2cp@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 15:23:16 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: d6b246023072368de71562c0ab503126
Subject: [L2CP] Re: Revised WG Charter Draft
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

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