Subject: RE: [L2CP] IETF L2CP Framework and Requirements

From: "Wojciech Dec \(wdec\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 15:32:23 +0100

Hi All,

First, I will take this opportunity to issue a call: In order to detail
the issues with the current implementation or perceived issues that need
to be addressed, could all interested parties please send to the
discussion list a list/1 slide that summarises their view of the issues
and points to address? This will all be rolled up into the BoF
presentation.

As regarding the drafts, I would suggest that indeed we should avoid
replicating text/work in multiple documents. As already stated in the WG
draft charter we ought to aim for having a general
framework/requirements document that captures the context and intended
use of the protocol and then a solution/applicability document that
serves as a protocol base. These can be later followed on with specific
extension drafts that fall into the framework.

Upon comparing draft-ooghe and draft wadhwa, it's apparent that the
latter already captured a lot of the framework with the newer draft
replicating a bit of text. The wadhwa draft captures a good bit of the
motivation for the protocol and the illustrations of the use-cases and
the framework should contain that text, eg the multicast section. While
the wadhwa draft provides high flows and a wider description of uses.
One item that I noticed however, is in difference to the DSL Forum work,
the framework should also consider interactions with other protocols (eg
Radius for one), and we can debate how to address this at the BOF.

Given the above, and following a small investigation into IETF
practices, I would thus suggest that we proceed into the BOF with the
two documents as individual contribution. If the formation of the WG is
agreed upon, a single L2CP WG framework document will be constructed by
taking/combining relevant text from both draft wadhwa and draft ooghe,
rather than have two docs replicating text. The resulting doc will be
addressing all items of the framework that the WG reaches rough
consensus on. In such a scenario, I would see the remainder of
draft-wadhwa then form the base for the solution/applicability doc.

The construction of a WG framework/requirements draft will be a
multi-party effort. This is likely to follow the BOF, however if anyone
wants to take a stab at doing this in the interim and come up with a
consensus they're welcome. By the same token I would issue another call
for volunteer(s) to assume editorship, and this call will also be
repeated at the BOF. 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 01 March 2006 11:32
To: Sanjay Wadhwa
Cc: [email-masked]; Voigt Norbert; [email-masked]; woj(mailer
list); Haag, T
Subject: Re: [L2CP] IETF L2CP Framework and Requirements

Hi Sanjay,

I agree with you that there is overlap between both documents at this
point in time. In the end, I believe this group should end up with two
documents: one focusing on the concept and the high-level requirements
(end to end network, network elements but not up to the detailed
protocol level itself), and another document focusing on the protocol
details (including detailed protocol related network element
requirements).

Historically, draft-wadhwa has covered both protocol and framework
topics which has proven to be very helpful. I agree it provides the
required context for the BOF.

We could have waited until after the BOF to break up draft-wadhwa into
two docs. But then again, as editors of WT-147 (the document progressed
at the DSL Forum), we thought it would be good to jumpstart the
framework discussion at the IETF by capturing what we have done for
WT-147. Rather than waiting until after the BOF, we thougt it would be
useful to make sure that IETF folks can have a look as this work before
the BOF.

I note that there is a new section in the document we submitted that
looks at the end to end network model, and defines the different network
elements and functions associated with them.

I agree with you that we must work with all interested folks to progress
both documents so that (1) overlap is minimalized and (2) consistency is
ensured (both for intra-IETF docs as well as between the IETF and the
DSL Forum).

Norbert, Michel, Thomas, do you guys want to add anything?

Regards,
Sven

Sanjay Wadhwa wrote:

> Sven 
>    This draft seems to be a subset and to a large extent re-iteration 
> (some of it verbatim) of draft-wadhwa-gsmp-l2control-config.txt. While

> the latter contains GSMP in the name, it's content sufficiently 
> captures the L2C concept, framework (and use cases) and 
> mechanism/details of a protocol to implement some of the use cases. It

> provides enough context for the BOF, both in terms of a framework and 
> a protocol mechanism (providing proof of concept since there are 
> interoperable DSLAM and BNG implementations based on this protocol). 
> While I do see it useful to break the existing ID 
> (draft-wadhwa-gsmp-l2control-config.txt) into a framework and a 
> protocol draft, I don't see the point of starting a parallel effort 
> with a brand new ID (reflecting content already present in the 
> existing draft). As far as the framework is concerned , do you see a 
> reason why this already existing draft can not be kept in sync with 
> DSL forum work (which is just getting underway in the form of
> WT-147) ? 
> Post-BOF, what we do need is detailed L2C requirements per network
element (BNG, access-node, and the CPE). These detailed requirements are
not explicitly covered anywhere (including in the draft you announced
below, even though the name suggests so). Based on the duscussions in
the BOF, I suggest that interested contributors of existing DSLF and
IETF documents, work togethter to come up with an ID covering the
detailed requriements (to the granulairty of network elements). 
> 
> -Sanjay
>  
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
>>Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 6:55 AM
>>To: [email-masked]; Voigt Norbert; [email-masked]; Sven 
>>Ooghe
>>Subject: [L2CP] IETF L2CP Framework and Requirements
>>
>>
>>All,
>>
>>As some of you on this list probably know, Norbert, Michel and myself 
>>are involved in the DSL Forum work on a proposed Working Text covering

>>the concept of Layer 2 Control in Broadband Multi-Service 
>>Architectures (WT-147). This is linked to the activities and 
>>discussions on this list.
>>
>>In preparation of the IETF BOF session, we considered it would be 
>>important that there would remain some alignment between the IETF 
>>activities and the DSL Forum discussions. This would especially hold 
>>for the IETF "Framework and Requirements" document.
>>
>>In preparation of the BOF session, we therefore prepared an IETF draft

>>titled "Framework and Requirements or a Layer 2 Control Protocol 
>>(L2CP) in Broadband Multi-Service Networks"
>>(attached for your reference). We would like to request a slot to 
>>discuss this at the upcoming L2CP BOF session in Dallas. We believe 
>>that having such a draft ready for the BOF will be beneficial for its 
>>success.
>>
>>The document is based on what is proposed for WT-147. We need to 
>>discuss how this draft and 
>>draft-wadhwa-gsmp-l2control-configuration-0x.txt evolve in relation to

>>each other, in order to reduce overlap to the extent possible.
>>
>>We also discussed the concerns regarding the scope of this document 
>>and proposed DSL Forum WT-147. We would like to ensure that the 
>>activities in both standards bodies remain synchronized.
>>
>>The submission deadline for first drafts was yesterday, so you should 
>>see the draft appear on the IETF exploder shortly. This deadline is 
>>before we will have had a chance to present the scope of WT-147 in the

>>DSL Forum Architecture and Transport working group. We expect the 
>>draft should take into account the future discussions at the DSL 
>>Forum.
>>
>>Comments are welcomed.
>>
>>Best regards,
>>Sven, Norbert, Michel and Thomas
>>
>>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> L2cp mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2cp
> 

_______________________________________________
L2cp mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2cp