RE: [L2CP] Advantages of L2CP (was: Revised WG Charter Draft)

["Busschbach, Peter B (Peter)" <[e-mail]>]

Sanjay,

I admit that I may have interpreted the words "is intended" incorrectly. I read it as: "is expected to deliver". In your rewording as "a nobel goal", the text is fine as is.

Peter

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sanjay Wadhwa [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 12:23 PM
> To: Busschbach, Peter B (Peter); Wojciech Dec (wdec); [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [L2CP] Advantages of L2CP (was: Revised WG Charter Draft)
> 
> 
> Peter
>   Please see inline..
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Busschbach, Peter B (Peter) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 10:51 AM
> >To: 'Wojciech Dec (wdec)'; [e-mail]
> >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:[e-mail]]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 7:34 AM
> >> To: Busschbach, Peter B (Peter); [e-mail]
> >> 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:[e-mail]] 
> >> Sent: 04 April 2006 21:23
> >> To: '[e-mail]'
> >> 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
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2cp
> >> 
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >L2cp mailing list
> >[e-mail]
> >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2cp
> >
> 

_______________________________________________
L2cp mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2cp