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

[Tom Taylor <[e-mail]>]

On 26/01/2014 12:53 AM, Zhangdacheng (Dacheng) wrote:
>>>
>>> 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
>
>
[PTT] This is the last outstanding item from your review.

The simple resolution is as you suggest: change the names of the 
capabilities. I'll do that.

Tom