Subject: [ANCP] Comments on draft-ietf-ancp-protocol-01

From: "OOGHE Sven" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 17:49:44 +0200

Hi,

Upon reading the ANCP protocol draft, I noticed that section 4 contains
some sections which overlap with the ANCP Framework and Requirements
document. In order to avoid this overlap, and also to increase the
alignment between both documents, I suggest to make the following
changes:

section 4: rename title to "ANCP message flows"

section 4.1 should clarify that following subsections describe the
message flows for the different use cases identified in the ANCP
Framework & Requirements document. It should also reference this
document, indicating it contains the background information on the ANCP
message flows.

section 4.2: rename title to "Access Topology Discovery" to be
consistent with the naming in the framework
section 4.2.1 is coverd by section 3.1 in the framework => it should be
removed

section 4.3: rename title to "Access Loop Configuration" to be
consistent with the naming in the framework
section 4.3.1 is coverd by section 3.2 in the framework => it should be
removed

I suggest to switch sections 4.4. and 4.5, to have the same sequence as
in the framework document. Then we get:

section 4.4 "Remote Connectivity Test" (title changed to make it
consistent with the framework)
The first two paragraphs before the message flows are also captured in
section 3.3 in the framework => they can be removed.

section 4.5 "Multicast" (title changed to make it consistent with the
framework)
The current text is also captured in section 3.4 of the framework, so I
think it should be removed. Also I believe the following sentence is
losing relevance: "In ATM access networks, ANCP can be used by the NAS
to setup P2MP cross-connects in the DSLAMs." As far as I know, most (if
not all) of current multicast deployment scenarios in access are based
on Ethernet/IP packet replication, not on ATM cell replication.
Furthermore, networks are rapidly migrating for ATM to Ethernet. For
these reasons I suggest removing this sentence.

Regards,
Sven

---

Sven Ooghe
Access Division, CTO Office
Alcatel-Lucent Bell NV
Copernicuslaan 50, 2018 Antwerp, Belgium
tel.: +32 3 240 42 26
fax: +32 3 240 40 73

This message (including any attachments) contains confidential
information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is
protected by law.  If you are not the intended recipient, you should
delete this message.  Any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this
message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited
without the prior consent of its author.

_______________________________________________
ANCP mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ancp

---

From: "Sanjay Wadhwa" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 08:59:59 -0400

Hi 
  See inline.
 
-Sanjay
 
----- Original Message -----
From: OOGHE Sven <  <mailto:[email-masked]>
[email-masked]>
To:  <mailto:[email-masked]> [email-masked] <  <mailto:[email-masked]>
[email-masked]>; Sanjay Wadhwa
Sent: Wed Jul 18 11:49:44 2007
Subject: Comments on draft-ietf-ancp-protocol-01
 
Hi, 

[Sanjay] There is introductory text in the draft that says:
 
"ANCP framework document [8] describes the ANCP use-cases in detail.
Illustrative text for 
 the use-cases is included here to help the protocol implementer
understand the greater 
 context of ANCP protocol interactions."
 
I have already pruned some of the overlapping text from sections 4 and
beyond. However, what is included is
minimally required to provide context. It is very much inline with other
IETF protocol specs, and 
I would like to keep it in. Please see inline for other comments.

section 4.1 should clarify that following subsections describe the
 message flows for the different use cases identified in the ANCP
 Framework
 & Requirements document. It should also reference this document,
 indicating it contains the background information on the ANCP message
 flows.
 
[Sanjay] See response above.

[Sanjay] OK.
 
section 4.2.1 is coverd by section 3.1 in the framework => it should
 be  removed 
 
[Sanjay] See response upfront.

[Sanjay] OK.
 
section 4.3.1 is coverd by section 3.2 in the framework => it should
 be removed 
 
[Sanjay] See response upfront.
 
I suggest to switch sections 4.4. and 4.5, to have the same sequence as
 in the framework document. 
 
[Sanjay] OK.

Then we get: 

[Sanjay] OK.

[Sanjay] Seen response upfront.
 
section 4.5 "Multicast" (title changed to make it consistent with the
 framework) 
The current text is also captured in section 3.4 of the framework, so I
 think it should be removed. 
 
[Sanjay] See response upfront.
 
Also I believe the following sentence is losing relevance: "In ATM
access networks, ANCP can be used by the NAS
 to setup P2MP cross-connects in the DSLAMs." As far as I know, most
 (if not all) of current multicast deployment scenarios in access are
based
 on Ethernet/IP packet replication, not on ATM cell replication.
 Furthermore, networks are rapidly migrating for ATM to Ethernet. For
 these  reasons I suggest removing this sentence.
 
[Sanjay] Agreed. This can go when the protocol machinery for multicast
use-cases is added.

Regards, 
Sven

---

From: "OOGHE Sven" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:53:16 +0200

Hi Sanjay,
 
I noticed the introductory text; that's fine with me. I haven't seen
other people react on my proposal, so I guess people are ok with leaving
the text the way it is. In that case I'm fine to keep the text.
 
Regards,
Sven

________________________________

From: Sanjay Wadhwa [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: dinsdag 24 juli 2007 15:00
To: OOGHE Sven; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Comments on draft-ietf-ancp-protocol-01

Hi 
  See inline.
 
-Sanjay
 
----- Original Message -----
From: OOGHE Sven <[email-masked]
<mailto:[email-masked]> >
To: [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>  <[email-masked]
<mailto:[email-masked]> >; Sanjay Wadhwa
Sent: Wed Jul 18 11:49:44 2007
Subject: Comments on draft-ietf-ancp-protocol-01
 
Hi, 

 

 

 
[Sanjay] OK.

 
 
[Sanjay] OK.

 
 
[Sanjay] OK.

Then we get: 

[Sanjay] OK.

 

 

Regards, 
Sven