AW: AW: [L2CP] Updated LC charter
"Haag, T" <Thomas.Haag@t-systems.com> Tue, 23 May 2006 10:56 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiUZ6-0004GV-1V; Tue, 23 May 2006 06:56:40 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiUZ5-0004GQ-AB for l2cp@ietf.org; Tue, 23 May 2006 06:56:39 -0400
Received: from tcmail33.telekom.de ([217.6.95.240]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiUZ3-00015r-S8 for l2cp@ietf.org; Tue, 23 May 2006 06:56:39 -0400
Received: from s4de8psaans.mitte.t-com.de by tcmail31.dmz.telekom.de with ESMTP; Tue, 23 May 2006 12:56:36 +0200
Received: by S4DE8PSAANS.blf.telekom.de with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <LMZGKR6S>; Tue, 23 May 2006 12:56:36 +0200
Message-Id: <6439282641581441A36F7F6F83ED2ED20EA044@S4DE8PSAAFQ.mitte.t-com.de>
From: "Haag, T" <Thomas.Haag@t-systems.com>
To: Matthew.Bocci@alcatel.co.uk
Subject: AW: AW: [L2CP] Updated LC charter
Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 12:56:31 +0200
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 0770535483960d190d4a0d020e7060bd
Cc: l2cp@ietf.org
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
Matthew, Thanks for the response. Please see inline. Regards Thomas Thomas, Thanks for your comments. Please see below. Matthew "Haag, T" <Thomas.Haag@t-sy stems.com> To Matthew BOCCI/GB/ALCATEL@ALCATEL 23/05/2006 11:18 cc l2cp@ietf.org Subject AW: [L2CP] Updated LC charter Matthew, Please see inline my comments: ? Necessary Terminology: Access Node (AN) - Network device, usually located at a service provider central office [Th. Haag] or street cabinet, that terminates DSL connections from Subscribers. Often referred to as a Digital Subscriber Line Access Multiplexer (DSLAM) ? The ANCP WG will address the following four use-cases: 1. Dynamic Access Loop [Th.Haag] attributes Various queuing and scheduling mechanisms are used in access networks to avoid congestion while dealing with multiple flows and distinct QoS profiles. Communicating the access-loop [Th.Haag] status and attributes and current DSL synchronization rate between the AN and Subscriber up to the NAS is desirable, particularly when the NAS is providing QoS for individual flows and subscribers. ANCP will provide a mechanism to communicate dynamic access-loop [Th.Haag] attributes from the AN to the NAS. ? Non-Goals: ANCP is an IP-based protocol that operates between the AN and NAS, over a DSL access and aggregation network. It will not address [Th.Haag] network management operation of circuits or connections in the access and aggregation network itself [Th.Haag] but will not exclude use case relevant aspects of access and aggregation. MB> We should not loose the fact that ANCP is not a signalling protocol for the establishment of ATM or Ethernet connectivity in the aggregation network. The current use cases do not require this, so I'm not sure that I understand your point. TH> That's o.k but use case relevant aspects such as e.g. Multicast should not exclude that elements along the data path between BNG and DSLAM may retrieve information and support use case specific functionality. I think of in case of multicast it may be the case that an aggregation device (aggregating street cabinet DSLAMs; scalability issue) can have the multicast point which may be controlled by ANCP (e.g. configuration of access lists...;combined with IGMP snooping in the aggregation). The focus of this WG is on one very specific application space. While the design of the protocol should be general as to not preclude other uses in the future should a need arise, it is not a goal of this WG to address specific requirements outside of DSL access and aggregation networks. ? Keeping in mind the following comments of the minutes I propose the changes regarding Non-goals. Mark Townsley: - we should not even precule other use of the protocol in other areas?. Mark Townsley: Scoping of that group is driving to solve existing problem. We should use good engineering to build things to allow future problems but we should not try to solve everything from the start. Regards Thomas -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Matthew.Bocci@alcatel.co.uk [mailto:Matthew.Bocci@alcatel.co.uk] Gesendet: Montag, 22. Mai 2006 18:20 An: l2cp@ietf.org Betreff: [L2CP] Updated LC charter Folks, We received a number of comments back from our ADs on the draft charter, following the last call that we issued a few weeks ago. Please find attached a new revision of the charter that incorporates these comments. Please post any comments to the list by this Friday (26th May). This will be taken to the IESG once once the list has agreed to the revisions. best regards, Matthew (See attached file: ANCP-charter-220506.txt) _______________________________________________ L2cp mailing list L2cp@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2cp
- AW: AW: [L2CP] Updated LC charter Haag, T
- Re: AW: AW: [L2CP] Updated LC charter Matthew.Bocci
- Re: AW: AW: [L2CP] Updated LC charter Matthew.Bocci