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