Subject: [ANCP] ANCP framework - questions

From: "OOGHE Sven" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:46:04 +0200

All,

During the IESG review a number of questions / comments were issued on
draft-ietf-ancp-framework-10.

The majority of the comments can be resolved fairly easily. I have been
working on a -11 version and will upload it shortly. Before doing so,
there are a few comments where I want to solicit feedback from this
list. Below you can find the comment received + my proposed resolution.

Please let me know if you are in agreement. If so, I will edit the
document accordigly and post version 11.

Regards,
Sven

---

Section 4.1
. The ANCP MUST allow fast-paced transactions, in order to provide real
time transactions between a NAS and a fully populated Access Node.

Remark received: without a definition of "fast-paced" this is an
impossible requirement to meet.

Can we be specific on this? According to me, there is nothing in the
protocol that prevents fast-paced transactions from happening. If so, I
feel it is probably better to drop this requirement.

. The ANCP SHOULD support a means to handle sending/receiving a large
burst of messages efficiently.

I received a similar remark. Given this will remain a vague requirement
which is not protocol-specific, I would be inclined to drop it.

Section 4.3
. The ANCP MUST be simple and lightweight enough to allow an
implementation on Access Nodes with limited control plane resources
(e.g.  CPU and memory)."

Same comment received. I suggest to reword this to

" The ANCP MUST be simple and lightweight enough to allow an
implementation on Access Nodes that does not specifically require
additional control plane resources (e.g. additional CPU and memory
requirements)."

Section 4.6.2
. The Access Node must process control transactions in real-time (i.e.
with a specific response latency).

Can we be more specific here? I suggest to maintain the requirement
as-is (it is a nodal requirement with uncapitalized "must").

Section 4.7.1
. The NAS must correlate Access Node Control information with the RADIUS
authorization process and related subscriber data.

Given that this is not a protocol requirement but an architecture
requirement, it doesn't belong in this draft. I propose do remove this
requirement.

---

From: "Alan Kavanagh" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 11:03:39 -0400

Hi Sven

Im fine with the suggested changes.

Alan 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
OOGHE Sven
Sent: July 15, 2009 7:46 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ANCP] ANCP framework - questions

All,

Regards,
Sven

---

Section 4.1

Section 4.3

Section 4.6.2

Section 4.7.1

Given that this is not a protocol requirement but an architecture
requirement, it doesn't belong in this draft. I propose do remove this
requirement.
_______________________________________________
ANCP mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ancp

---

From: "OOGHE Sven" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:22:27 +0200

All,

So far I have received one positive response to the below proposed
resolution. I intend to make these changes and submit version 11 on
Monday.

Regards
Sven

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
OOGHE Sven
Sent: woensdag 15 juli 2009 13:46
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ANCP] ANCP framework - questions

All,

Regards,
Sven

---

Section 4.1

Section 4.3

Section 4.6.2

Section 4.7.1