Subject: [ANCP] A Question about draft-ietf-ancp-protocol-06

From: Fortune HUANG <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 10:36:20 +0800

Dear all,
 
Sanjay and I agree on the following points below in the email thread
"Question about the Tech Type in draft-ietf-ancp-protocol-05" (attached
below).
"Given "Tech type" is not part of base GSMP RFC, and is an ANCP specific
extension, it makes sense to define ANCP specific "Tech  type" registry
where 0x01-0x04 should be available for allocation (we can update the ANCP
protocol draft). We don't need to change what has been allocated for DSL
(0x05) though. We will need to allocate a value for PON."
 
Given no negative response received, I almost assumed those points were
acceptable. But I don't know why those points were not implemented in the
-06 version. I would also like to know if there were any concerns about
those points, please.

Best regards,
Fortune
 
  _____  

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Fortune HUANG
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 9:11 AM
To: 'Sanjay Wadhwa'; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ANCP] Question about the Tech Type in
draft-ietf-ancp-protocol-05

Hi Sanjay,
 
Thank you very much for your answer.
 
I agree with your opinion that we should keep 0x05 for DSL.
 
Given 0x01~0x04 should be available for allocation, I propose to allocate
0x01 for PON. Is it acceptable, please?

Best Regards,
Fortune

  _____  

From: Sanjay Wadhwa [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 8:25 PM
To: Fortune HUANG; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ANCP] Question about the Tech Type in
draft-ietf-ancp-protocol-05

Fortune

  Tech Type was originally specified in GSMPv3 drafts (post RFC). 0x01-0x04
was intended to be allocated for existing technologies that were trying to
leverage GSMP at the time. Given "Tech type" is not part of base GSMP RFC,
and is an ANCP specific extension, it makes sense to define ANCP specific
"Tech type" registry where 0x01-0x04 should be available for allocation (we
can update the ANCP protocol draft). We don't need to change what has been
allocated for DSL (0x05) though. We will need to allocate a value for PON.

Regards

-Sanjay

  _____  

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Fortune HUANG
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 5:20 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ANCP] Question about the Tech Type in
draft-ietf-ancp-protocol-05

Hi all,

Given no further response on this thread, I assume almost none of the people
in the ANCP mailing list knows what those technologies indicated by Tech
Type values of 0x01~0x04 are. 

If Sanjay was right that the Tech Type would a new IANA registry, then
according to the charter of ANCP WG, only the DSL and PON (newly added)
technologies should be defined and maybe we should withdraw the allocation
of 0x01~0x04. 

But since PON is now in the charter, we should anyway allocate a Tech Type
value for PON. 

Best Regards,

Fortune

  _____  

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Fortune HUANG
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 9:17 AM
To: 'Sanjay Wadhwa'; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ANCP] Question about the Tech Type in
draft-ietf-ancp-protocol-05

Hi Sanjay,

Thank you very much for your answer.

But in the text in section 5.4.1.1 as follows, if the tech type is new
registry, then what types of technologies are the 0x01 ~ 0x04 indicates
respectively? I think they should be clearly specified, although I guess
they might be 0x01 for 802.3, 0x02 for 802.11a/b/g, 0x03 for 802.163, 0x04
for 802.16m. Is it correct?

"Tech Type

         An 8-bit field indicating the applicable technology type value.
         The Message Type plus the Tech Value uniquely define a single
         Extension Type and can be treated as a single 16 bit extension
         type.  "Tech Type" value of 0x05 SHOULD be used by ANCP for DSL
         technology.

            0x00 Extension block not in use.

            0x01 - 0x04 Already in use by various technologies

            0x05 DSL

            0x06 - 0xFE Reserved

            0xFF Base Specification Use

"

Best Regards,

Fortune

  _____  

From: Sanjay Wadhwa [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 10:47 PM
To: Fortune HUANG; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ANCP] Question about the Tech Type in
draft-ietf-ancp-protocol-05

Hi Fortune

The intent is to define an ANCP specific tech-type registry, and not take
what MIP/PMIP uses as per your reference below.

Regards

-Sanjay

  _____  

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Fortune HUANG
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 12:28 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ANCP] Question about the Tech Type in draft-ietf-ancp-protocol-05

Hi all,

I have a question about the Tech Type in ANCP protocol for clarification.

It says "Tech Type" value of 0x05 SHOULD be used by ANCP for DSL technology
in section 5.4.1.1 of draft-ietf-ancp-protocol-05.

I can find two related technology type registries at the website
http://www.iana.org/protocols/ as follows, but the 0x05 has been allocated
in both registries. Is the first registry with the name Access Technology
Types the right registry for the Tech Type in ANCP protocol, please? If it
is, I propose we change the 0x05 for DSL in section 5.4.1.1 to be 0x09 or
"to be allocated by IANA"  in order to avoid incorrect implementation.

Registry Name: Access Technology Types
Reference: [RFC-leung-mip4-proxy-mode-10.txt]
Registration Procedures: Expert Review

Registry:
Value     Name                                               Reference
--------  -------------------------------------------------  ---------
0         Reserved
[RFC-leung-mip4-proxy-mode-10.txt]
1         802.3
[RFC-leung-mip4-proxy-mode-10.txt]
2         802.11a/b/g
[RFC-leung-mip4-proxy-mode-10.txt]
3         802.16e
[RFC-leung-mip4-proxy-mode-10.txt]
4         802.16m
[RFC-leung-mip4-proxy-mode-10.txt]
5         3GPP EUTRAN/LTE
[RFC-leung-mip4-proxy-mode-10.txt]
6         3GPP UTRAN/GERAN
[RFC-leung-mip4-proxy-mode-10.txt]
7         3GPP2 1xRTT/HRPD
[RFC-leung-mip4-proxy-mode-10.txt]
8         3GPP2 UMB
[RFC-leung-mip4-proxy-mode-10.txt]
9-255     Unassigned

Access Technology Type Option type values 

Reference 

[ <http://www.iana.org/go/rfc5213> RFC5213] 

Registration Procedures 

Expert Review 

Value

Description

Reference

Registration Date

0

Reserved

[ <http://www.iana.org/go/rfc5213> RFC5213]

1

Virtual

[ <http://www.iana.org/go/rfc5213> RFC5213]

2

PPP

[ <http://www.iana.org/go/rfc5213> RFC5213]

3

IEEE 802.3

[ <http://www.iana.org/go/rfc5213> RFC5213]

4

IEEE 802.11a/b/g

[ <http://www.iana.org/go/rfc5213> RFC5213]

5

IEEE 802.16e

[ <http://www.iana.org/go/rfc5213> RFC5213]

6

3GPP GERAN

[ <http://www.3gpp.org/specs/specs.htm> 3GPP TS 29.275][
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/mobility-parameters.xht
ml#Julien_Laganier> Julien_Laganier]

2008-07-30

7

3GPP UTRAN

[ <http://www.3gpp.org/specs/specs.htm> 3GPP TS 29.275][
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/mobility-parameters.xht
ml#Julien_Laganier> Julien_Laganier]

2008-07-30

8

3GPP E-UTRAN

[ <http://www.3gpp.org/specs/specs.htm> 3GPP TS 29.275][
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/mobility-parameters.xht
ml#Julien_Laganier> Julien_Laganier]

2008-07-30

9

3GPP2 eHRPD

[ <http://www.3gpp2.org/public_html/specs/index.cfm> 3GPP2 X.P0057][
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/mobility-parameters.xht
ml#Kuntal_Chowdhury> Kuntal_Chowdhury]

2008-08-21

10

3GPP2 HRPD

[ <http://www.3gpp2.org/public_html/specs/index.cfm> 3GPP2 X.P0061][
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/mobility-parameters.xht
ml#Kuntal_Chowdhury> Kuntal_Chowdhury]

2008-08-21

11

3GPP2 1xRTT

[ <http://www.3gpp2.org/public_html/specs/index.cfm> 3GPP2 X.S0011][
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/mobility-parameters.xht
ml#Kuntal_Chowdhury> Kuntal_Chowdhury]

2008-08-21

12

3GPP2 UMB

[ <http://www.3gpp2.org/public_html/specs/index.cfm> 3GPP2 X.S0054][
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/mobility-parameters/mobility-parameters.xht
ml#Kuntal_Chowdhury> Kuntal_Chowdhury]

2008-08-21

13-255

Unassigned

 

Best Regards,

Fortune