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

From: "Sanjay Wadhwa" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 12:12:11 -0500

Mark
I understand the process. However, in spirit, competitive (and new) work
as opposed to repeating what is already out there is more productive. 

-Sanjay

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Townsley [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 9:06 AM
To: Sanjay Wadhwa
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Voigt Norbert;
[email-masked]; Jerome Moisand; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Subject: Re: [L2CP] IETF L2CP Framework and Requirements

Anyone can publish an individual submission draft at anytime (up to the
cutoff 
dates for a general meeting), and often overlapping and even competing
proposals 
are sent in advance to a meeting that is at the BoF stage. This is the
process 
the IETF has for providing a stable reference for everyone to look at
and 
consider, and shouldn't be treated as more or less. All drafts
officially expire 
after 6 months if they are not advanced anyway.

After the WG is formed, the WG will be tasked to create a single working
group 
draft (i.e., draft-ietf-l2cp..) for each of its deliverables. At this
time, 
input from individual submission drafts, comments on the list, etc. will
be 
incorporated based on the rough consensus of the group.

- Mark

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

---

From: Mark Townsley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 18:45:30 +0100

> as opposed to repeating what is already out there is more productive.

Absolutely, please work together, I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. That is 
what we are all here for.

- Mark