Re: [secdir] [spam] secdir review of draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions-14

["Zhangdacheng (Dacheng)" <[e-mail]>]

> >
> > 4)
> >
> > Section 6.1.3 lists the protocol elements that MUST be implemented to
> > support the conditional access with white and black lists multicast
> > capability. I found White-List-CAC TLV is included in the list.
> > However, the White-List-CAC TLV is used to indicate that the NAS
> > wishes the AN to do admission control for white-listed flows, and this
> > use case is discussed in Section 3.4.2.3 of RFC 5851 "Multicast
> > Admission Control and White Lists". So, I doubt whether this TLV needs
> > to be supported is this case.
> >
> [PTT] Doesn't Section 3.4.2.3 describe a case where the AN does both
> admission control and white listing, and sets the conditions for doing that?
> 
>   "IPTV is an example of a service that will not be offered as best
>    effort, but requires some level of guaranteed quality of service.
>    This requires the use of Multicast Admission Control.  Hence, if the
>    Access Node wants to autonomously perform the admission process, it
>    must be aware of the bandwidth characteristics of multicast flows.
>    Otherwise, the Access Node would have to query the NAS for Multicast
>    Admission Control (per the grey list behavior); this would defeat the
>    purpose of using a white and black list."
> 

[Dacheng Zhang:] 
Maybe I didn't explain my point view clearly last time. Sorry for that.

If the title of section 6.13 is "Protocol Requirements For Admission Control With White and Black Lists ", then everything is perfect because this TLV is used to indicate that the NAS wishes the AN to do admission control for white-listed flows. The use case you provided above is also one for admission control. But at the moment, the tile of this section is " Protocol Requirements For Conditional Access With White and Black Lists ". That is why I raised a question here for your consideration. ^_^

Cheers

Dacheng