From iesg-secretary@ietf.org Tue Feb 5 12:57:24 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ancp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ancp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3DC821F8684; Tue, 5 Feb 2013 12:57:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.515 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.515 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.084, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vFEVaDVkskvd; Tue, 5 Feb 2013 12:57:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E868521F8605; Tue, 5 Feb 2013 12:57:22 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.37 Message-ID: <20130205205722.8063.36744.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2013 12:57:22 -0800 Cc: ancp@ietf.org Subject: [ANCP] Last Call: (Applicability of Access Node Control Mechanism to PON based Broadband Networks) to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: ancp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org List-Id: Access Node Control Protocol working group mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2013 20:57:24 -0000 The IESG has received a request from the Access Node Control Protocol WG (ancp) to consider the following document: - 'Applicability of Access Node Control Mechanism to PON based Broadband Networks' as Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-02-19. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract The purpose of this document is to provide applicability of the Access Node Control mechanism to PON-based broadband access. The need for an Access Node Control mechanism between a Network Access Server (NAS) and an Access Node Complex (a combination of Optical Line Termination (OLT) and Optical Network Termination (ONT) elements) is described in a multi-service reference architecture in order to perform QoS-related, service-related and Subscriber-related operations. The Access Node Control mechanism is also extended for interaction between components of the Access Node Complex (OLT and ONT). The Access Node Control mechanism will ensure that the transmission of information between the NAS and Access Node Complex (ANX) and between the OLT and ONT within an ANX does not need to go through distinct element managers but rather uses a direct device-to-device communication and stays on net. This allows for performing access link related operations within those network elements to meet performance objectives. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ancp-pon/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ancp-pon/ballot/ The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D: http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1734/ From rdroms.ietf@gmail.com Fri Feb 8 07:53:32 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ancp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ancp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 525A821F8AB2; Fri, 8 Feb 2013 07:53:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.524 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JcCMYRUEytum; Fri, 8 Feb 2013 07:53:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ve0-f171.google.com (mail-ve0-f171.google.com [209.85.128.171]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 963AD21F86B6; Fri, 8 Feb 2013 07:53:31 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ve0-f171.google.com with SMTP id b10so3445547vea.30 for ; Fri, 08 Feb 2013 07:53:31 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date :cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=D3Usc/mLeKiH/8tN4PSKsOOjRIc2Pus8nilMc5q437k=; b=DGXSRNUFo9eWJxma7EyUIcundmxY5SBh+NOsfEkStAI3siPT5x+x1B4RR5haxq96dN 6snt75n7xIK8x8Eq5ZTAaqp5KrPBwoicpMTCqFE+ji3NUF0Q5Nz+TrHkYv1y9Kd0d/bD 5uRSWjkIHEVQ7Zq0jQGV5DTGw7IM60nR+eSjZW0abt/4ZL3vyFmM/1RT5iAhNKtqqFmz AHYa2qgKPs6hmKls6BA52iLqkSAANVKT0PP71e5JP+L6DyEQ2SvBucmmzACDf25lSrL5 CVrGdTuVA9TtKAKUE9mqLibf+IcwY7W/Hh9VG+4M7ftdCR+yFmXpe0Lmqe/k6Jxojaiq IR9A== X-Received: by 10.220.154.66 with SMTP id n2mr7174195vcw.40.1360338811008; Fri, 08 Feb 2013 07:53:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:420:2481:20:c9a8:311a:e6bb:eecc? ([2001:420:2481:20:c9a8:311a:e6bb:eecc]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id x9sm43976493vel.4.2013.02.08.07.53.28 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 08 Feb 2013 07:53:30 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\)) From: Ralph Droms In-Reply-To: <20130205205722.8063.36744.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 10:53:29 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <541553B6-3033-421A-BA1C-368AA849DAC7@gmail.com> References: <20130205205722.8063.36744.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> To: ietf@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499) Cc: ancp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ANCP] Last Call: (Applicability of Access Node Control Mechanism to PON based Broadband Networks) to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: ancp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Access Node Control Protocol working group mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2013 15:53:32 -0000 Note that this last call is a second last call, to gather comments on = the publication of the document considering the IPR disclosures that = were published late in the previous IETF last call. - Ralph On Feb 5, 2013, at 3:57 PM 2/5/13, The IESG = wrote: >=20 > The IESG has received a request from the Access Node Control Protocol = WG > (ancp) to consider the following document: > - 'Applicability of Access Node Control Mechanism to PON based = Broadband > Networks' > as Informational RFC >=20 > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-02-19. Exceptionally, comments may = be > sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. >=20 > Abstract >=20 >=20 > The purpose of this document is to provide applicability of the > Access Node Control mechanism to PON-based broadband access. The > need for an Access Node Control mechanism between a Network > Access Server (NAS) and an Access Node Complex (a combination of > Optical Line Termination (OLT) and Optical Network Termination > (ONT) elements) is described in a multi-service reference > architecture in order to perform QoS-related, service-related and > Subscriber-related operations. The Access Node Control mechanism > is also extended for interaction between components of the Access > Node Complex (OLT and ONT). The Access Node Control mechanism > will ensure that the transmission of information between the NAS > and Access Node Complex (ANX) and between the OLT and ONT within > an ANX does not need to go through distinct element managers but > rather uses a direct device-to-device communication and stays on > net. This allows for performing access link related operations > within those network elements to meet performance objectives. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > The file can be obtained via > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ancp-pon/ >=20 > IESG discussion can be tracked via > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ancp-pon/ballot/ >=20 >=20 > The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D: >=20 > http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1734/ >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > ANCP mailing list > ANCP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ancp From rdroms.ietf@gmail.com Fri Feb 8 13:10:50 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ancp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ancp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 785A121F8C0C; Fri, 8 Feb 2013 13:10:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.253 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.253 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.254, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_82=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q9EwD2zPKvGK; Fri, 8 Feb 2013 13:10:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vc0-f181.google.com (mail-vc0-f181.google.com [209.85.220.181]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95B2521F8C09; Fri, 8 Feb 2013 13:10:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vc0-f181.google.com with SMTP id d16so2619244vcd.40 for ; Fri, 08 Feb 2013 13:10:49 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:subject:mime-version:content-type:from:x-priority :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to:x-mailer; bh=IyR4q93L3crh7t0HVidxhcBSbPAFTS4W5A+5nX1KwbA=; b=RsQl32p/zdUpbj5535dPMiPh7NcJ/1nRVr8mVpRhPGyFTp8k2/R1llq3xAHkq2uaOD wvAonVJkJO5RyuCm1Hc+XJUJTWTuKLJjI+jCBR65qEjLTlIC2MoBTsd69zmpoAJU6lH3 tRCyOLtv85/OwAvuZqeHMd820yERY+9ztbrDh1u+GoLH0ANcEvAyg6w8qP4UdhNX44Dk niKuIOpva4vr07Eo3Op1qDqOEpBMLcQtcQ0eMYaZoFv+hq+GHGKN7MTVA7K6FV+dfVAd yyg1JXll4sRkLfwzbi6E/Rn1cniU3ooD6kKaoFQpdQzk/5jDo6a7qG4LhbfnTEHA+oVJ jjCg== X-Received: by 10.52.27.50 with SMTP id q18mr7678760vdg.20.1360357848985; Fri, 08 Feb 2013 13:10:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:420:2481:20:6126:183e:6d24:bff? ([2001:420:2481:20:6126:183e:6d24:bff]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id p20sm45822359vdj.6.2013.02.08.13.10.46 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 08 Feb 2013 13:10:48 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Ralph Droms X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 16:10:44 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <705E4078-2C8E-4132-8F14-F7055D0E6166@gmail.com> References: <20130205205722.8063.36744.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <541553B6-3033-421A-BA1C-368AA849DAC7@gmail.com> To: "GTW" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499) Cc: ancp@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ANCP] Last Call: (Applicability ofAccess Node Control Mechanism to PON based Broadband Networks)to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: ancp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Access Node Control Protocol working group mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2013 21:10:50 -0000 On Feb 8, 2013, at 4:07 PM 2/8/13, "GTW" wrote: > Ralph, for clarification ... is there more than the one IP disclosure = at http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1734/ ? >=20 >=20 > The term "disclosures" lead me to believe there may be more than one Good catch. Typo on my part. There is just the one disclosure. - Ralph >=20 > George T. Willingmyre, P.E. > President GTW Associates >=20 > -----Original Message----- From: Ralph Droms > Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 10:53 AM > To: ietf@ietf.org > Cc: ancp@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [ANCP] Last Call: (Applicability ofAccess Node Control = Mechanism to PON based Broadband Networks)to Informational RFC >=20 > Note that this last call is a second last call, to gather comments on = the publication of the document considering the IPR disclosures that = were published late in the previous IETF last call. >=20 > - Ralph >=20 > On Feb 5, 2013, at 3:57 PM 2/5/13, The IESG = wrote: >=20 >>=20 >> The IESG has received a request from the Access Node Control Protocol = WG >> (ancp) to consider the following document: >> - 'Applicability of Access Node Control Mechanism to PON based = Broadband >> Networks' >> as Informational RFC >>=20 >> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits >> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to = the >> ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-02-19. Exceptionally, comments = may be >> sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the >> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. >>=20 >> Abstract >>=20 >>=20 >> The purpose of this document is to provide applicability of the >> Access Node Control mechanism to PON-based broadband access. The >> need for an Access Node Control mechanism between a Network >> Access Server (NAS) and an Access Node Complex (a combination of >> Optical Line Termination (OLT) and Optical Network Termination >> (ONT) elements) is described in a multi-service reference >> architecture in order to perform QoS-related, service-related and >> Subscriber-related operations. The Access Node Control mechanism >> is also extended for interaction between components of the Access >> Node Complex (OLT and ONT). The Access Node Control mechanism >> will ensure that the transmission of information between the NAS >> and Access Node Complex (ANX) and between the OLT and ONT within >> an ANX does not need to go through distinct element managers but >> rather uses a direct device-to-device communication and stays on >> net. This allows for performing access link related operations >> within those network elements to meet performance objectives. >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> The file can be obtained via >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ancp-pon/ >>=20 >> IESG discussion can be tracked via >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ancp-pon/ballot/ >>=20 >>=20 >> The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D: >>=20 >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1734/ >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> ANCP mailing list >> ANCP@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ancp >=20 From matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com Wed Feb 13 06:34:33 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ancp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ancp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 989BC21F8745 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 06:34:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.248 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.248 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 08GYfA3Ixe6d for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 06:34:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from smail2.alcatel.fr (smail2.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.57]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1C9A21F861C for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 06:34:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB04.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB04.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.64]) by smail2.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id r1DEVBgW015574 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 15:34:31 +0100 Received: from FR712WXCHHUB03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (135.239.2.74) by FRMRSSXCHHUB04.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (135.120.45.64) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 15:34:25 +0100 Received: from FR711WXCHMBA05.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.1.120]) by FR712WXCHHUB03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.74]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 15:34:24 +0100 From: "Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)" To: "ancp@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Progressing draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions-08.txt Thread-Index: AQHOCfc35hS1gM6oGU6y5K8xVn1JlQ== Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 14:34:23 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.0.121105 x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.12] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CD4154EE3E148matthewboccialcatellucentcom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.69 on 155.132.188.80 Subject: [ANCP] Progressing draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions-08.txt X-BeenThere: ancp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Access Node Control Protocol working group mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 14:34:33 -0000 --_000_CD4154EE3E148matthewboccialcatellucentcom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Working group Due to the lack of discussion on the list of this draft during the two work= ing group last calls, the chairs and ADs would like to see support for prog= ressing this draft expressed on the list. Since this has been through two w= orking group last calls, then next logical step would be submission to the = IESG. If you support progressing this draft to RFC, then please reply to the ANCP= email list expressing your support. Equally, if you do not support progressing the draft, please reply to the l= ist, stating your reasons. In either case, please send any comments to the list. We will close this poll on 27th Feb 2013. If there is consensus for progress the draft, then I will do the document s= hepherd review and write-up. Bets regards Matthew --_000_CD4154EE3E148matthewboccialcatellucentcom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <3F00E19848D50440AEE385E57A26B87C@exchange.lucent.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Working group

Due to the lack of discussion on the list of this draft during the two= working group last calls, the chairs and ADs would like to see support for= progressing this draft expressed on the list. Since this has been through = two working group last calls, then next logical step would be submission to the IESG.

If you support progressing this draft to RFC, then please reply to the= ANCP email list expressing your support.

Equally, if you do not support progressing the draft, please reply to = the list, stating your reasons.

In either case, please send any comments to the list.

We will close this poll on 27th Feb 2013.

If there is consensus for progress the draft, then I will do the docum= ent shepherd review and write-up.

Bets regards

Matthew
--_000_CD4154EE3E148matthewboccialcatellucentcom_-- From wdec@cisco.com Wed Feb 13 07:11:34 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ancp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ancp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B8D521F869B for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 07:11:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iGqgsQLZfbPn for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 07:11:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 579B421F8689 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 07:11:27 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2255; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1360768287; x=1361977887; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=P9GRRziXhYE/FwxyOIJOLwSyz7iXlxDDNuxtvNy1WXw=; b=Zo00OhSzJ3QKT6PSD1arOVIRrkj86BE9pKGGSLEbsdwPVaKqk1GnbXDX CYwZ8Jz/x0w8GqFK8T2+20HvIX4Ecca3NziQEXqRXS0xDme3+E0Xt2bYB 0SEmlth7Dw9LjvqJiu8xpkgSTW4pCeigo4efdzLPXNNRnYWOWaA45hoYO o=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av4EALOsG1GtJV2Y/2dsb2JhbABEwGkWc4IhAQQ6PxIBKhRCJwQODYgKDL5fkSJhA5dBjzaDBoIn X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,657,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="176694233" Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Feb 2013 15:11:27 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com [173.36.12.85]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r1DFBQ9O016009 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 13 Feb 2013 15:11:26 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x05.cisco.com ([169.254.11.34]) by xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com ([173.36.12.85]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 09:11:26 -0600 From: "Wojciech Dec (wdec)" To: "draft-ietf-ancp-mib-an@tools.ietf.org" Thread-Topic: comments on draft-ietf-ancp-mib-an-10 Thread-Index: AQHOCfxkxE0hg9WvI06dFUQKsmGrTA== Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 15:11:26 +0000 Message-ID: <19F346EB777BEE4CB77DA1A2C56F20B321DBAC@xmb-aln-x05.cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.5.121010 x-originating-ip: [144.254.206.53] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <0D197605D22C5147AA2A4384AA1B1F77@cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "ancp@ietf.org" , "ancp-chairs@tools.ietf.org" Subject: [ANCP] comments on draft-ietf-ancp-mib-an-10 X-BeenThere: ancp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Access Node Control Protocol working group mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 15:11:34 -0000 Hi All, Here's my review/feedback regarding the draft-ietf-ancp-mib-an-10 draft: Section 4. While it may be obvious, it likely would be useful to add that the ANCP Server MIB document is not scoped by this draft. Suggested text could be something like: "This document specifies a MIB module an ANCP client, such as an Access Node (AN). An ANCP server, such as a NAS, would be typically expected to implement an ANCP server MIB that is not covered by this document." Section 5.4 (but applicable to whole document as it pops up throughout) It would be preferable to recast sentences such as "This table is used to configure ANCP sessions at the AN towards a specific NAS" To: This table is used to configure ANCP sessions at the ANCP client towards a specific ANCP server. Section 5.4 Text says: "Each session configured in ancpAnSessionConfigTable has a corresponding row in ancpAnCurrentSessionTable." As currently defined there seems to be little difference between the ancpAnSessionConfigTable and the ancpAnCurrentSessionTable. Shouldn't the intent be that only active sessions, makred as such in the ancpAnSessionConfigTable, be represented in the ancpAnCurrentSessionTable? Section 7. AncpSessionCapabilities The capabilities list does not reflect the capabilities we have in the defined in other ANCP specs. Missing are: - Multicast=20 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions-08#section-6) - PON (TBD) The names of the capabilities shown should be aligned to what we have in: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6320#section-10.7 ancpAnSessionConfigNasIpAddressType and ancpAnCurrentSessionAnIpAddressType Shouldn't the syntax also detail the allowed values for say InetAddressType? Eg SYNTAX InetAddressType { ipv4(1), ipv6(2) } ancpAnSessionConfigNasIpAddress and ancpAnCurrentSessionAnIpAddress Shouldn't the syntax also indicate the size? Eg SYNTAX InetAddress ( SIZE (4|16) ) Why isn't there an ancpANSessionConfigIPAddress* ? If the assumption is that this address becomes derived only from the IF-MIB, and the assignment of interfaces to the ANCP session, then it would be helpful to explain that to the reader. Regards, Woj.. From eckert@cisco.com Wed Feb 13 08:04:20 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ancp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ancp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7205321F88B2 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 08:04:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.593 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.593 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.006, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jQ4OWlPl0Xg3 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 08:04:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from mtv-iport-3.cisco.com (mtv-iport-3.cisco.com [173.36.130.14]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D255C21F8794 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 08:04:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1158; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1360771459; x=1361981059; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=rVFf8fIO7ngxhAZd4FoOWsK2dkoz/dV+nWzq5gRI0eQ=; b=KGVUY65j59+CST+OMPcHWpyfQIJdpF5n5cK+bpdQOXSlK5I1wCrppKlO jJY4oPQPccT6YMK0wOvr5QhxQhWeMm4BL7JAYvCdZSNFYhrr0zsWQq++u 0wGxBLlrf00nWL/2lqZ6JRpP8XJURUqOoDdb5o4DKEIp+BVLL/vL85J1R U=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EACe5G1GrRDoI/2dsb2JhbABFwG0Wc4IfAQEBBAEBATc0CwULCxgJJQ8FEzYTiBENvnEEjTqESgOIZo09AZBTgyeBUQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,658,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="69555453" Received: from mtv-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.58.8]) by mtv-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Feb 2013 16:04:19 +0000 Received: from mcast-linux1.cisco.com (mcast-linux1.cisco.com [172.27.244.121]) by mtv-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r1DG49vA024923 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 13 Feb 2013 16:04:14 GMT Received: from mcast-linux1.cisco.com (mdt-linux4 [127.0.0.1]) by mcast-linux1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r1DG2NEO024684; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 08:02:38 -0800 Received: (from eckert@localhost) by mcast-linux1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id r1DG28Vv024661; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 08:02:08 -0800 Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 08:01:53 -0800 From: Toerless Eckert To: "Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)" Message-ID: <20130213160153.GG30497@cisco.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Cc: "ancp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [ANCP] Progressing draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions-08.txt X-BeenThere: ancp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Access Node Control Protocol working group mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 16:04:21 -0000 I support for this document to progress to RFC. Thanks a lot for this long but good work! On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 02:34:23PM +0000, Bocci, Matthew (Matthew) wrote: > Working group > Due to the lack of discussion on the list of this draft during the two > working group last calls, the chairs and ADs would like to see support for > progressing this draft expressed on the list. Since this has been through > two working group last calls, then next logical step would be submission > to the IESG. > If you support progressing this draft to RFC, then please reply to the > ANCP email list expressing your support. > Equally, if you do not support progressing the draft, please reply to the > list, stating your reasons. > In either case, please send any comments to the list. > We will close this poll on 27th Feb 2013. > If there is consensus for progress the draft, then I will do the document > shepherd review and write-up. > Bets regards > Matthew > _______________________________________________ > ANCP mailing list > ANCP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ancp From robmgl.ietf@gmail.com Wed Feb 13 08:08:04 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ancp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ancp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE32821F88B2 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 08:08:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.49 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.49 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.110, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ww72HOC5yv5u for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 08:08:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ia0-x244.google.com (ia-in-x0244.1e100.net [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c02::244]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 332DE21F87C3 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 08:08:00 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ia0-f196.google.com with SMTP id l25so274943iad.3 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 08:07:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=re8Tcvsm5j6kHQfyM/YoLRrFdBcVAQ8H0puT47Y6iGM=; b=lNWDAaIaWOSdE3y1HHzsjIexoJFIw7cydHiLjWJzouxG4rp34mxxs3pwbLPyx7rOMq 29gt7+BtstJCBMMQ8ooeMsc5z9CN0JOB9czr5xVOl68G0Bt0wH10YPZfpUkQauiPTLDN ogqTWicCmgIvHtRV0f+XA4F51GBH2xs2xONGiuNVCyoivYawiJaZLK8PtYenY7fdTFka QSVB+AIEvMzftlEZQ0yNWSDynJtkR1q2nnWOyfg8SrCSqRk/AGj8G0Jq+r2byHeHK4Ax XQOAfbugH0Nr5Bjsxkq/txrpH0onowsH+FDP/VKiOYywCdb6t0IH2RmP3leD6xD1RlDO a5wg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.37.236 with SMTP id b12mr12054897igk.42.1360771671585; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 08:07:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.64.47.134 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 08:07:51 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20130213160153.GG30497@cisco.com> References: <20130213160153.GG30497@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 17:07:51 +0100 Message-ID: From: Roberta Maglione To: Toerless Eckert Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d044788d91af1ae04d59d58d2 Cc: "ancp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [ANCP] Progressing draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions-08.txt X-BeenThere: ancp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Access Node Control Protocol working group mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 16:09:48 -0000 --f46d044788d91af1ae04d59d58d2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Support as one of co-authors. Regards Roberta On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Toerless Eckert wrote: > I support for this document to progress to RFC. > Thanks a lot for this long but good work! > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 02:34:23PM +0000, Bocci, Matthew (Matthew) wrote: > > Working group > > Due to the lack of discussion on the list of this draft during the two > > working group last calls, the chairs and ADs would like to see > support for > > progressing this draft expressed on the list. Since this has been > through > > two working group last calls, then next logical step would be > submission > > to the IESG. > > If you support progressing this draft to RFC, then please reply to the > > ANCP email list expressing your support. > > Equally, if you do not support progressing the draft, please reply to > the > > list, stating your reasons. > > In either case, please send any comments to the list. > > We will close this poll on 27th Feb 2013. > > If there is consensus for progress the draft, then I will do the > document > > shepherd review and write-up. > > Bets regards > > Matthew > > > _______________________________________________ > > ANCP mailing list > > ANCP@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ancp > _______________________________________________ > ANCP mailing list > ANCP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ancp > --f46d044788d91af1ae04d59d58d2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Support as one of co-authors.

Regar= ds
Roberta


On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Toerless Eckert <eckert@c= isco.com> wrote:
I support for this document to progress to R= FC.
Thanks a lot for this long but good work!

On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 02:34:23PM +0000, Bocci, Matthew (Matthew) wrote: > =A0 =A0Working group
> =A0 =A0Due to the lack of discussion on the list of this draft during = the two
> =A0 =A0working group last calls, the chairs and ADs would like to see = support for
> =A0 =A0progressing this draft expressed on the list. Since this has be= en through
> =A0 =A0two working group last calls, then next logical step would be s= ubmission
> =A0 =A0to the IESG.
> =A0 =A0If you support progressing this draft to RFC, then please reply= to the
> =A0 =A0ANCP email list expressing your support.
> =A0 =A0Equally, if you do not support progressing the draft, please re= ply to the
> =A0 =A0list, stating your reasons.
> =A0 =A0In either case, please send any comments to the list.
> =A0 =A0We will close this poll on 27th Feb 2013.
> =A0 =A0If there is consensus for progress the draft, then I will do th= e document
> =A0 =A0shepherd review and write-up.
> =A0 =A0Bets regards
> =A0 =A0Matthew

> _______________________________________________
> ANCP mailing list
> ANCP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ancp
_______________________________________________
ANCP mailing list
ANCP@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ancp

--f46d044788d91af1ae04d59d58d2-- From flefauch@cisco.com Wed Feb 13 08:19:55 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ancp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ancp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B52D921F8794 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 08:19:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F66h-iBHxGOb for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 08:19:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C019F21F877B for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 08:19:54 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5686; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1360772394; x=1361981994; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=tZwdkmQmEgvzbdCihkeqsRBtRjWPtTnd6MATh4hZq2M=; b=ePRsXQTH9bSckoKgtQK7HfA7ish/5bKSxdI36cWAoz9pvSgDCUcchfAn OT9/O48fFEu4iMYzCXLepVdupEpRjHAnKippX94QqCjGl2IKKa2PWHTpU Reb7j13cWTabKs3j/6hVGy5hgGa7bS74DpXU4QwM3Fn0lff3OPsuU9UXS I=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAMK7G1GtJV2Y/2dsb2JhbABFwG4Wc4IfAQEBBAEBAWsQCwIBCBgKHQchBgsUEQIEEwiHeAMPDLULDYlXBIw2gQSDaWEDiDCMG40ZhRODBoFyNQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,658,1355097600"; d="scan'208,217";a="176682655" Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Feb 2013 16:19:54 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com [173.37.183.76]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r1DGJsBj019708 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 16:19:54 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([169.254.15.195]) by xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com ([173.37.183.76]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 10:19:54 -0600 From: "Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch)" To: "ancp@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [ANCP] Progressing draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions-08.txt Thread-Index: AQHOCfc35hS1gM6oGU6y5K8xVn1JlZh4V4eAgAABq4CAAANcAA== Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 16:19:53 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20130213160153.GG30497@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.55.161.199] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_FC236DA6F2DA77449EF2D02DF4471A8D3753D7xmbrcdx10ciscocom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [ANCP] Progressing draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions-08.txt X-BeenThere: ancp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Access Node Control Protocol working group mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 16:19:55 -0000 --_000_FC236DA6F2DA77449EF2D02DF4471A8D3753D7xmbrcdx10ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello, I support publication. I am aware of a commercial implementation of a subset of that spec. I am a co-author of that spec. Francois On 13 Feb 2013, at 17:07, Roberta Maglione > wrote: Support as one of co-authors. Regards Roberta On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Toerless Eckert > wrote: I support for this document to progress to RFC. Thanks a lot for this long but good work! On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 02:34:23PM +0000, Bocci, Matthew (Matthew) wrote: > Working group > Due to the lack of discussion on the list of this draft during the two > working group last calls, the chairs and ADs would like to see support= for > progressing this draft expressed on the list. Since this has been thro= ugh > two working group last calls, then next logical step would be submissi= on > to the IESG. > If you support progressing this draft to RFC, then please reply to the > ANCP email list expressing your support. > Equally, if you do not support progressing the draft, please reply to = the > list, stating your reasons. > In either case, please send any comments to the list. > We will close this poll on 27th Feb 2013. > If there is consensus for progress the draft, then I will do the docum= ent > shepherd review and write-up. > Bets regards > Matthew > _______________________________________________ > ANCP mailing list > ANCP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ancp _______________________________________________ ANCP mailing list ANCP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ancp _______________________________________________ ANCP mailing list ANCP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ancp --_000_FC236DA6F2DA77449EF2D02DF4471A8D3753D7xmbrcdx10ciscocom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello,

I support publication.
I am aware of a commercial implementation of a subset of that spec.
I am a co-author of that spec.

Francois

On 13 Feb 2013, at 17:07, Roberta Maglione <robmgl.ietf@gmail.com>
 wrote:

Support as one of co-authors.

Regards
Roberta


On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Toerless Eckert= <eckert@cisco.com<= /a>> wrote:
I support for this document to progress to RFC.
Thanks a lot for this long but good work!

On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 02:34:23PM +0000, Bocci, Matthew (Matthew) wrot= e:
>    Working group
>    Due to the lack of discussion on the list of this draft d= uring the two
>    working group last calls, the chairs and ADs would like t= o see support for
>    progressing this draft expressed on the list. Since this = has been through
>    two working group last calls, then next logical step woul= d be submission
>    to the IESG.
>    If you support progressing this draft to RFC, then please= reply to the
>    ANCP email list expressing your support.
>    Equally, if you do not support progressing the draft, ple= ase reply to the
>    list, stating your reasons.
>    In either case, please send any comments to the list.
>    We will close this poll on 27th Feb 2013.
>    If there is consensus for progress the draft, then I will= do the document
>    shepherd review and write-up.
>    Bets regards
>    Matthew

> _______________________________________________
> ANCP mailing list
> ANCP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ancp
_______________________________________________
ANCP mailing list
ANCP@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ancp

_______________________________________________
ANCP mailing list
ANCP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ancp

--_000_FC236DA6F2DA77449EF2D02DF4471A8D3753D7xmbrcdx10ciscocom_-- From tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com Wed Feb 13 09:15:15 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ancp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ancp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9D9921F8938 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 09:15:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.668 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.668 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.620, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DMmCl6+wg6Yu for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 09:15:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ie0-x22d.google.com (mail-ie0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31BDE21F87F3 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 09:15:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ie0-f173.google.com with SMTP id 9so2014567iec.18 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 09:15:11 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:x-antivirus:x-antivirus-status; bh=y4rA1M+zTUyHgCS+GPh4QbXKieen8yTDUTiRjjxiWNk=; b=adEbMNXcyTVqaTVWUKTTHkoZWfexooCMnK7SwC1LToppZoKzf/xlYDPOmKAqXEBPPq dROrWvIKokLzimhgoTN3Onann9Dt8epIw9TUEmr9KIBuZCrvGpCKTp+GENQgCz14ZfPe wjeYeWdA7O0hKRp/n8V1ucIK4PvaJ/9hQA6gb2+IPPFXQ201PGZMMXEIk6BXKzhG/c1Q I+J/e2wUpO0LRChyjOXSpVBrDQDcWZdr8iIOsb23EYtq6YiySQMPkoc6vZsDW/qZ1Pie YhuuV97mEqrmq4rDzKrXBrnFtK2tYt5DmmRrtYet4KBXNgHXBw4f/spS4Z65qRAKXnL7 oNmA== X-Received: by 10.50.179.66 with SMTP id de2mr12356874igc.59.1360775711719; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 09:15:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (dsl-207-112-82-191.tor.primus.ca. [207.112.82.191]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id bp7sm15613581igb.4.2013.02.13.09.15.09 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 13 Feb 2013 09:15:10 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <511BCA1C.309@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 12:15:08 -0500 From: Tom Taylor User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)" References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 130213-0, 13/02/2013), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Cc: "ancp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [ANCP] Progressing draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions-08.txt X-BeenThere: ancp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Access Node Control Protocol working group mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 17:15:15 -0000 As coauthor and editor, I definitely would like to see this published. Tom Taylor On 13/02/2013 9:34 AM, Bocci, Matthew (Matthew) wrote: > Working group > > Due to the lack of discussion on the list of this draft during the two working group last calls, the chairs and ADs would like to see support for progressing this draft expressed on the list. Since this has been through two working group last calls, then next logical step would be submission to the IESG. > > If you support progressing this draft to RFC, then please reply to the ANCP email list expressing your support. > > Equally, if you do not support progressing the draft, please reply to the list, stating your reasons. > > In either case, please send any comments to the list. > > We will close this poll on 27th Feb 2013. > > If there is consensus for progress the draft, then I will do the document shepherd review and write-up. > > Bets regards > > Matthew > > > > _______________________________________________ > ANCP mailing list > ANCP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ancp > From hongyu.li@huawei.com Wed Feb 13 23:30:25 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ancp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ancp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D9B821F8726 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 23:30:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3FJlD9oFjQ1H for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 23:30:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EA1521F85D4 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 23:30:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id APS31395; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 07:30:21 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 07:29:49 +0000 Received: from SZXEML415-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.154) by lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 07:30:05 +0000 Received: from SZXEML524-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.131]) by szxeml415-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.154]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.007; Thu, 14 Feb 2013 15:29:58 +0800 From: "Hongyu Li (Julio)" To: "Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)" , "ancp@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Progressing draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions-08.txt Thread-Index: AQHOCfc35hS1gM6oGU6y5K8xVn1JlZh49en9 Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 07:29:58 +0000 Message-ID: <6EB34CB5D82C4645B826C56144826EA96A8EB07B@szxeml524-mbx.china.huawei.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.46.29.44] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_6EB34CB5D82C4645B826C56144826EA96A8EB07Bszxeml524mbxchi_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Subject: Re: [ANCP] Progressing draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions-08.txt X-BeenThere: ancp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Access Node Control Protocol working group mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 07:30:25 -0000 --_000_6EB34CB5D82C4645B826C56144826EA96A8EB07Bszxeml524mbxchi_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I support this draft become an RFC. TR-207 in BBF is referencing this draft= . Thanks. Hongyu ________________________________ From: ancp-bounces@ietf.org [ancp-bounces@ietf.org] on behalf of Bocci, Mat= thew (Matthew) [matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 22:34 To: ancp@ietf.org Subject: [ANCP] Progressing draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions-08.txt Working group Due to the lack of discussion on the list of this draft during the two work= ing group last calls, the chairs and ADs would like to see support for prog= ressing this draft expressed on the list. Since this has been through two w= orking group last calls, then next logical step would be submission to the = IESG. If you support progressing this draft to RFC, then please reply to the ANCP= email list expressing your support. Equally, if you do not support progressing the draft, please reply to the l= ist, stating your reasons. In either case, please send any comments to the list. We will close this poll on 27th Feb 2013. If there is consensus for progress the draft, then I will do the document s= hepherd review and write-up. Bets regards Matthew --_000_6EB34CB5D82C4645B826C56144826EA96A8EB07Bszxeml524mbxchi_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I support this draft become an RFC. TR-207 in BBF is referenci= ng this draft.

 

Thanks.

 

Hongyu

From: ancp-bounces@ietf.org [ancp-bounces@= ietf.org] on behalf of Bocci, Matthew (Matthew) [matthew.bocci@alcatel-luce= nt.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 22:34
To: ancp@ietf.org
Subject: [ANCP] Progressing draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions-08.txt

Working group

Due to the lack of discussion on the list of this draft during the two= working group last calls, the chairs and ADs would like to see support for= progressing this draft expressed on the list. Since this has been through = two working group last calls, then next logical step would be submission to the IESG.

If you support progressing this draft to RFC, then please reply to the= ANCP email list expressing your support.

Equally, if you do not support progressing the draft, please reply to = the list, stating your reasons.

In either case, please send any comments to the list.

We will close this poll on 27th Feb 2013.

If there is consensus for progress the draft, then I will do the docum= ent shepherd review and write-up.

Bets regards

Matthew
--_000_6EB34CB5D82C4645B826C56144826EA96A8EB07Bszxeml524mbxchi_-- From Moti.Morgenstern@ecitele.com Mon Feb 18 05:50:47 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ancp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ancp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1226B21F88BC for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 05:50:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.202 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6UYQcxjKg5fn for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 05:50:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail1.bemta5.messagelabs.com (mail1.bemta5.messagelabs.com [195.245.231.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3AE921F8906 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 05:50:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from [85.158.139.83:59219] by server-15.bemta-5.messagelabs.com id 95/D6-18914-0B132215; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 13:50:40 +0000 X-Env-Sender: Moti.Morgenstern@ecitele.com X-Msg-Ref: server-6.tower-182.messagelabs.com!1361195378!23891201!20 X-Originating-IP: [147.234.242.234] X-StarScan-Received: X-StarScan-Version: 6.8.6; banners=-,-,- X-VirusChecked: Checked Received: (qmail 15071 invoked from network); 18 Feb 2013 13:50:33 -0000 Received: from ilptbmg01-out.ecitele.com (HELO ilptbmg01-out.ecitele.com) (147.234.242.234) by server-6.tower-182.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 18 Feb 2013 13:50:33 -0000 X-AuditID: 93eaf2e7-b7f056d00000169d-a7-512229493848 Received: from ILPTEXCH02.ecitele.com ( [147.234.245.181]) by ilptbmg01-out.ecitele.com (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id D3.FB.05789.94922215; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 15:14:49 +0200 (IST) Received: from ILPTWPVEXCA02.ecitele.com (172.31.244.232) by ILPTEXCH02.ecitele.com (147.234.245.181) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.264.0; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 15:50:31 +0200 Received: from ILPTWPVEXMB02.ecitele.com ([fe80::5979:ca8d:419f:56df]) by ILPTWPVEXCA02.ecitele.com ([fe80::c473:490d:3a7e:e34a%12]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 15:50:30 +0200 From: Moti Morgenstern To: "Wojciech Dec (wdec)" , "draft-ietf-ancp-mib-an@tools.ietf.org" Thread-Topic: comments on draft-ietf-ancp-mib-an-10 Thread-Index: AQHOCfxkxE0hg9WvI06dFUQKsmGrTJh/h66g Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 13:50:29 +0000 Message-ID: <8FEE79F3EE86A244B0BDE68E90ED34DC07923282@ILPTWPVEXMB02.ecitele.com> References: <19F346EB777BEE4CB77DA1A2C56F20B321DBAC@xmb-aln-x05.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <19F346EB777BEE4CB77DA1A2C56F20B321DBAC@xmb-aln-x05.cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.4.42.215] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA3VTa0gUURjtzsyuozkxbepeV6npVlLWxq62YZTRg8iKUCmIoshx97Y7tTO7 7KzR1o+kMMP80VZKKrYbaIn0psiwiLYME8pie4g9oeih2cPsCT1mHDUhur/OnXPmnO+7fB9N GspiTLQg+bFP4t1IH0ft7+rtMy+ZgvItrXdR1q2aH7qs9u5ych6RU1f3ncjpi37S5xFrisEc XpI8ft6POQeW7dkozyds5u0BxAmObGRFnNfN27GIJX824r1eLDnQ3DjunzNHkQkShyW7xyFI zmy0ZEWuOSvLNstsRXPTJlgzZ8etdAkyh80iL7g5Ecsy78Sc8qXgLOm62tQQ430zaUv9uXdE MXgwtgzE0pCdAe/U1pMaToK3n5zUl4E42sBeBvDDlUiMShjYJgCjX1ZpRAuA35+H9SqhZ22w r/ckoeIEdjssi4Z0KibZArjzUAtQ8Rg2A/ac2K3XNJnw5q8QqeEMWBV8S6mYYifB2s62fj3D 5sGSmj0DwUtheeuOfk0suwxeazrenwWUSr+2HSO0LCPsfBEitA5YWHexfaCbRPjm+S+dhsfB j7+DA/ppMNzcq9fwVHjkcDep5Y6GN6peUFruFBi63kNp/ybDKw0d1F6QXD0srnqYVfUwq+ph VmFANYJEwe31F4pOi3U6tgt+7MbT7R7xDNCG51UT+BGaGAEsDVA8E8bj8w06frMcECMgmSZQ IiNNQ/mGUYUeR8DFy671viI3liMA0iRKYEofKXLGwQe2Yp9nkFqkvGaQNI20e5QxlfzrMy2W /1+QkTlavCrXwDqV0dyEsRf7Bn1SaRpBZplFiR/tw068ZYPg9v+lCTpWLSNeKWOcqmFkLy/K glPj24CZ3nn01WtgoCSPhE1GBqoiVhW5iqQhn8EV6gJG5QHGMJyqilcWbMipSwkhlJDGx2qv srJCQ5SpGDQkJh002U5n7op8C359+HT1/RrRxU5OuXQnJWFHx9TPzXLzhYXozIn3aTOXV6zd Xpq2NvntpYmnlrtiO027UnZHfYGSTz+70usr8WLLZKxr3XdXR0bb+WcHWjZmBM9HjGxB78sH E1KrRtwrLAqnj1wglvSss22rmN/9qCP4rXKj04Yo2cVb00mfzP8BuejbzR0EAAA= Cc: "ancp@ietf.org" , "ancp-chairs@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [ANCP] comments on draft-ietf-ancp-mib-an-10 X-BeenThere: ancp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Access Node Control Protocol working group mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 13:50:47 -0000 Hi, See inline my comments. Regards, Moti -----Original Message----- From: ancp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ancp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Wojc= iech Dec (wdec) Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 5:11 PM To: draft-ietf-ancp-mib-an@tools.ietf.org Cc: ancp@ietf.org; ancp-chairs@tools.ietf.org Subject: [ANCP] comments on draft-ietf-ancp-mib-an-10 Hi All, Here's my review/feedback regarding the draft-ietf-ancp-mib-an-10 draft: Section 4. While it may be obvious, it likely would be useful to add that the ANCP Serv= er MIB document is not scoped by this draft. Suggested text could be somethi= ng like: "This document specifies a MIB module an ANCP client, such as an Access Node= (AN). An ANCP server, such as a NAS, would be typically expected to impleme= nt an ANCP server MIB that is not covered by this document." **** MM: OK **** Section 5.4 (but applicable to whole document as it pops up throughout) It w= ould be preferable to recast sentences such as "This table is used to confi= gure ANCP sessions at the AN towards a specific NAS" To: This table is used to configure ANCP sessions at the ANCP client towards a specific ANCP server. **** MM: OK **** Section 5.4 Text says: "Each session configured in ancpAnSessionConfigTable has a corres= ponding row in ancpAnCurrentSessionTable." As currently defined there seems to be little difference between the ancpAnS= essionConfigTable and the ancpAnCurrentSessionTable. Shouldn't the intent be that only active sessions, makred as such in the anc= pAnSessionConfigTable, be represented in the ancpAnCurrentSessionTable? **** MM: The description clause of the ancpAnCurrentSessionTable currently says that= "A row in this table is created when the corresponding row in the ancpAnSes= sionConfigTable is created". I agree that it is too early to expect any stat= us associated with a session that was just created and still isn't fully con= figured. That is, the row in the status table is meaningful only after the r= ow in the configuration table is activated. So, there is a need to correct t= he description. However, I think that the term "active sessions" actually covers sessions th= at their ancpAnSessionConfigRowStatus object is either set to 'active' or 'n= otInService'. **** Section 7. AncpSessionCapabilities The capabilities list does not reflect the capabilities we have in the defin= ed in other ANCP specs. Missing are: - Multicast (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions-08#section-6) - PON (TBD) **** MM: There are plenty of capabilities in ANCP but I didn't manage to find any "li= st". So, probably 'multicast' and 'PON' should be added. I assume we need al= so to add 'Line Connectivity Testing'. But, I also assume that those three a= re not the only missing capabilities. **** The names of the capabilities shown should be aligned to what we have in: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6320#section-10.7 **** MM: OK **** ancpAnSessionConfigNasIpAddressType and ancpAnCurrentSessionAnIpAddressType Shouldn't the syntax also detail the allowed values for say InetAddressType?= Eg SYNTAX InetAddressType { ipv4(1), ipv6(2) } **** MM: I think that the following two actions are required: 1) Add a sentence in the description clause of each object saying: "While ot= her types of addresses are defined in the InetAddressType textual convention= , this object is limited to IPv4 and IPv6 addresses." 2) Put a limit in the MODULE-COMPLIANCE statement, e.g. OBJECT ancpAnSessionConfigNasIpAddressType SYNTAX InetAddressType { unknown(0), ipv4(1), ipv6(2) } DESCRIPTION "An implementation is only required to support IPv4 and IPv6 addresse= s." **** ancpAnSessionConfigNasIpAddress and ancpAnCurrentSessionAnIpAddress Shouldn't the syntax also indicate the size? Eg SYNTAX InetAddress ( SIZE (4= |16) ) **** MM: I think that the following two actions are required: 1) Indicate in the description clause of each object that the object is limi= ted to IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. 2) Put a limit in the MODULE-COMPLIANCE statement, e.g. OBJECT ancpAnSessionConfigNasIpAddress SYNTAX InetAddress (SIZE(0|4|16)) DESCRIPTION "An implementation is only required to support IPv4 and globally uniq= ue IPv6 addresses." **** Why isn't there an ancpANSessionConfigIPAddress* ? If the assumption is that= this address becomes derived only from the IF-MIB, and the assignment of in= terfaces to the ANCP session, then it would be helpful to explain that to th= e reader. Regards, Woj.. _______________________________________________ ANCP mailing list ANCP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ancp This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains informat= ion which is CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If yo= u have received this transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phon= e or fax, and then delete the original and all copies thereof. From tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com Mon Feb 18 07:52:41 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ancp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ancp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7106D21F88A8 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 07:52:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.193 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.193 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.241, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wwA1W1PpK0ml for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 07:52:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ia0-x22c.google.com (ia-in-x022c.1e100.net [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c02::22c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE73121F8886 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 07:52:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ia0-f172.google.com with SMTP id l29so3282671iag.3 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 07:52:40 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-antivirus:x-antivirus-status; bh=I90TNRwsy9Ni2nLfg/M55wlRiuQaOcWHDpRMP38CSz0=; b=PxuzZ8CLbaxxPZfvzM6AQFOt0eFpw6pVkA7x5OAaKoJUglgsuGg2mOoQsPVMRqXAC1 X70vtiJ09+zpU8CWQTEN1x480JD3h5pkmOLMxSrzV0ouD6ot9xWgzAJaX1fqqO4OFxuW lqf/fii6gTa8nPnMWU1LPsqrIInhzZWVEy18jXWEi1jVnoPzfjD32zlfpfX2G8YUoiNc D8q9QhL9uRJV87iTl+hdqdamOeIPXAUyDHqnKi6DhxSp2GMOFstt8KW4nYSPISDrdRp4 SLiuYFJQbjsTXrsIPb2vMK4wEpdeJ9harzEQUkaTMY6R+HFhnEaXWr1Mk8Oy9bVRysaB QMaw== X-Received: by 10.50.88.228 with SMTP id bj4mr6803858igb.85.1361202760426; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 07:52:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (dsl-207-112-82-191.tor.primus.ca. [207.112.82.191]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id wv1sm8667469igb.0.2013.02.18.07.52.38 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 18 Feb 2013 07:52:39 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <51224E46.3060809@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 10:52:38 -0500 From: Tom Taylor User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ancp@ietf.org References: <19F346EB777BEE4CB77DA1A2C56F20B321DBAC@xmb-aln-x05.cisco.com> <8FEE79F3EE86A244B0BDE68E90ED34DC07923282@ILPTWPVEXMB02.ecitele.com> In-Reply-To: <8FEE79F3EE86A244B0BDE68E90ED34DC07923282@ILPTWPVEXMB02.ecitele.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 130218-0, 18/02/2013), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [ANCP] comments on draft-ietf-ancp-mib-an-10 X-BeenThere: ancp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Access Node Control Protocol working group mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 15:52:41 -0000 Could I point out that the RFC 6320 does not talk about clients and servers? It talks about the AN and the NAS. And either side can initiate transactions, depending on the transaction, so I think the client-server terminology would actually be confusing. Sorry, I should have noted this point earlier. On 18/02/2013 8:50 AM, Moti Morgenstern wrote: > Hi, > > See inline my comments. > > Regards, > Moti > > -----Original Message----- > From: ancp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ancp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Wojciech Dec (wdec) > Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 5:11 PM > To: draft-ietf-ancp-mib-an@tools.ietf.org > Cc: ancp@ietf.org; ancp-chairs@tools.ietf.org > Subject: [ANCP] comments on draft-ietf-ancp-mib-an-10 > > Hi All, > > Here's my review/feedback regarding the draft-ietf-ancp-mib-an-10 draft: > > Section 4. > While it may be obvious, it likely would be useful to add that the ANCP Server MIB document is not scoped by this draft. Suggested text could be something like: > > "This document specifies a MIB module an ANCP client, such as an Access Node (AN). An ANCP server, such as a NAS, would be typically expected to implement an ANCP server MIB that is not covered by this document." > > **** MM: OK **** > > Section 5.4 (but applicable to whole document as it pops up throughout) It would be preferable to recast sentences such as "This table is used to configure ANCP sessions at the AN towards a > specific NAS" > > To: > This table is used to configure ANCP sessions at the ANCP client towards a > specific ANCP server. > > **** MM: OK **** > ... From wdec@cisco.com Mon Feb 18 08:18:31 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ancp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ancp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CE9421F8C10 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 08:18:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.428 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.428 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.171, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j9HnXdOVziVu for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 08:18:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D60821F8BEB for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 08:18:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2135; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1361204310; x=1362413910; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=yqFcp++6+pqpn0rfNaOyxmPQc+ci99ELcjCxHXbV52U=; b=K6JDfjcd9dEp07897hkI2UdihDP6MEFg1DghoVgoSTbq3YObYk4xdwUY eCFTtdZiHUQFF50VbCJzA/aLzylF0aS1Qs6wklurKmGW1ArAsKTcfSOkP jmqko618Ut3cBu4iWUbaNwfjm2y7s1GzR+4icNhm9BvPtWFciyuF26ZPL Q=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgEFAChTIlGtJV2Z/2dsb2JhbABEwCOBBBZzgh8BAQEEAQEBNzQXBgEIEQQBAQEKFAkoBgsUCQgCBAESCId4Aw8Mtm4NiT0EjFmCLSYSBoJZYQOUUY0ehRWDB4In X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,688,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="178324265" Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Feb 2013 16:18:30 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x04.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x04.cisco.com [173.37.183.78]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r1IGIUJo026367 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 18 Feb 2013 16:18:30 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x05.cisco.com ([169.254.11.34]) by xhc-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([173.37.183.78]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 10:18:29 -0600 From: "Wojciech Dec (wdec)" To: Tom Taylor , "ancp@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [ANCP] comments on draft-ietf-ancp-mib-an-10 Thread-Index: AQHOCfxkxE0hg9WvI06dFUQKsmGrTJh/h66ggACo4gCAABf6gA== Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 16:18:29 +0000 Message-ID: <19F346EB777BEE4CB77DA1A2C56F20B3223C0F@xmb-aln-x05.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <51224E46.3060809@gmail.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.5.121010 x-originating-ip: [10.61.86.81] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <095E301D11D2504A979BC80DE6E3DE68@cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [ANCP] comments on draft-ietf-ancp-mib-an-10 X-BeenThere: ancp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Access Node Control Protocol working group mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 16:18:31 -0000 Yes, and in retrospect its rather unfortunate, since it is a client-server protocol with the functions in AN-NAS respectively. The main point though is that the ANCP MIB draft does not apply to the server side. Regards, Woj.. On 18/02/2013 16:52, "Tom Taylor" wrote: >Could I point out that the RFC 6320 does not talk about clients and >servers? It talks about the AN and the NAS. And either side can initiate >transactions, depending on the transaction, so I think the client-server >terminology would actually be confusing. Sorry, I should have noted this >point earlier. > >On 18/02/2013 8:50 AM, Moti Morgenstern wrote: >> Hi, >> >> See inline my comments. >> >> Regards, >> Moti >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ancp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ancp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >>Wojciech Dec (wdec) >> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 5:11 PM >> To: draft-ietf-ancp-mib-an@tools.ietf.org >> Cc: ancp@ietf.org; ancp-chairs@tools.ietf.org >> Subject: [ANCP] comments on draft-ietf-ancp-mib-an-10 >> >> Hi All, >> >> Here's my review/feedback regarding the draft-ietf-ancp-mib-an-10 draft: >> >> Section 4. >> While it may be obvious, it likely would be useful to add that the ANCP >>Server MIB document is not scoped by this draft. Suggested text could be >>something like: >> >> "This document specifies a MIB module an ANCP client, such as an Access >>Node (AN). An ANCP server, such as a NAS, would be typically expected to >>implement an ANCP server MIB that is not covered by this document." >> >> **** MM: OK **** >> >> Section 5.4 (but applicable to whole document as it pops up throughout) >>It would be preferable to recast sentences such as "This table is used >>to configure ANCP sessions at the AN towards a >> specific NAS" >> >> To: >> This table is used to configure ANCP sessions at the ANCP client >>towards a >> specific ANCP server. >> >> **** MM: OK **** >> >... >_______________________________________________ >ANCP mailing list >ANCP@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ancp From tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com Mon Feb 18 11:48:55 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ancp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ancp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26B3021F8B48 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 11:48:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.124 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.124 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.172, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AQbsMkzratCy for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 11:48:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ie0-x22a.google.com (mail-ie0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAE3E21F8943 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 11:48:54 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ie0-f170.google.com with SMTP id c11so7683501ieb.15 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 11:48:54 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:x-antivirus:x-antivirus-status; bh=1RKs7ZoJTyVHir1l+KWzWtdHwlEGh+Fvf+uDLDl0Fuc=; b=Yc1VlFUqRlkN6KuzRIu7jhps6JABO0CnuD2qXMEof/UIJboH8VOSK3/Eg/aE3cjr2i H8FEzxu//ASEggWwgFXxK2cos4hI3RGiIi4y7MIuXKEMaRVAdwcKisDD8diy+esR4WEc 7HakNeb2a77lDbLKssRuI6m07vBPedMC28udkL5uG+MR8WJrSO1cGc9Gn/yDznez0rJV eBUSjwBBTXP55QPG0TWviR46auQtB/Tgfa40ohPboPMadsfsnkYAvhW1KucvjaVuaGzX OJjctAzRDrbxfWdGqcwuwkYTHcHcT5rMQbyliTu8SpCzEKvupM20yLa6abtjeLds19sQ +pLg== X-Received: by 10.50.46.202 with SMTP id x10mr7369018igm.87.1361216934274; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 11:48:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (dsl-207-112-82-191.tor.primus.ca. [207.112.82.191]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id dm10sm9080465igb.3.2013.02.18.11.48.52 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 18 Feb 2013 11:48:53 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <512285A4.5040009@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 14:48:52 -0500 From: Tom Taylor User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Wojciech Dec (wdec)" References: <19F346EB777BEE4CB77DA1A2C56F20B3223C0F@xmb-aln-x05.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <19F346EB777BEE4CB77DA1A2C56F20B3223C0F@xmb-aln-x05.cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 130218-0, 18/02/2013), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Cc: "ancp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [ANCP] comments on draft-ietf-ancp-mib-an-10 X-BeenThere: ancp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Access Node Control Protocol working group mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 19:48:55 -0000 That is, it applies to the Access Node side. On 18/02/2013 11:18 AM, Wojciech Dec (wdec) wrote: > Yes, and in retrospect its rather unfortunate, since it is a client-server > protocol with the functions in AN-NAS respectively. > The main point though is that the ANCP MIB draft does not apply to the > server side. > > Regards, > Woj.. > > On 18/02/2013 16:52, "Tom Taylor" wrote: > >> Could I point out that the RFC 6320 does not talk about clients and >> servers? It talks about the AN and the NAS. And either side can initiate >> transactions, depending on the transaction, so I think the client-server >> terminology would actually be confusing. Sorry, I should have noted this >> point earlier. >> >> On 18/02/2013 8:50 AM, Moti Morgenstern wrote: ... From stefaan.de_cnodder@alcatel-lucent.com Tue Feb 19 00:49:14 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ancp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ancp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7586121F87D1 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 00:49:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q0fKRoTwcKlV for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 00:49:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from smail2.alcatel.fr (smail2.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.57]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0094121F8758 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 00:49:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.61]) by smail2.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id r1J8iVRa019297 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:49:00 +0100 Received: from FR712WXCHHUB03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (135.239.2.74) by FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (135.120.45.61) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:48:58 +0100 Received: from FR711WXCHMBA06.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.2.242]) by FR712WXCHHUB03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.74]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:48:58 +0100 From: "DE CNODDER, STEFAAN (STEFAAN)" To: "Wojciech Dec (wdec)" Thread-Topic: [ANCP] comments on draft-ietf-ancp-mib-an-10 Thread-Index: AQHOCfxkxE0hg9WvI06dFUQKsmGrTJh/h66ggAAziQCAAAc5gIAAOsgAgADppSA= Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 08:48:57 +0000 Message-ID: <5F657CFC59E51E4B842F0D51C19AC36CEF95@FR711WXCHMBA06.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> References: <19F346EB777BEE4CB77DA1A2C56F20B3223C0F@xmb-aln-x05.cisco.com> <512285A4.5040009@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <512285A4.5040009@gmail.com> Accept-Language: nl-BE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.12] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.69 on 155.132.188.80 Cc: "ancp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [ANCP] comments on draft-ietf-ancp-mib-an-10 X-BeenThere: ancp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Access Node Control Protocol working group mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 08:49:14 -0000 Hi, I think indeed that the document may be more explicit that it is only for A= N and not for NAS. However, introducing new terminology in a MIB document = is the wrong place. It is indeed a client-server protocol, but saying that= this is a client MIB while "client" has never been defined before, is not = going to make it clearer. About the capabilities: it is a MIB for only RFC 6320. If other documents = introduce new functionality like PON or multicast, then this requires a new= MIB module that also defines objects to enable and disable the capabilitie= s of that functionality. regards, Stefaan -----Original Message----- From: ancp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ancp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tom= Taylor Sent: maandag 18 februari 2013 20:49 To: Wojciech Dec (wdec) Cc: ancp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ANCP] comments on draft-ietf-ancp-mib-an-10 That is, it applies to the Access Node side. On 18/02/2013 11:18 AM, Wojciech Dec (wdec) wrote: > Yes, and in retrospect its rather unfortunate, since it is a client-serve= r > protocol with the functions in AN-NAS respectively. > The main point though is that the ANCP MIB draft does not apply to the > server side. > > Regards, > Woj.. > > On 18/02/2013 16:52, "Tom Taylor" wrote: > >> Could I point out that the RFC 6320 does not talk about clients and >> servers? It talks about the AN and the NAS. And either side can initiate >> transactions, depending on the transaction, so I think the client-server >> terminology would actually be confusing. Sorry, I should have noted this >> point earlier. >> >> On 18/02/2013 8:50 AM, Moti Morgenstern wrote: ... _______________________________________________ ANCP mailing list ANCP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ancp From wdec@cisco.com Tue Feb 19 01:00:58 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ancp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ancp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4F6D21F8DD7 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 01:00:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UqPsuR-bcLyk for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 01:00:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADAD521F8DC9 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 01:00:57 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2406; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1361264457; x=1362474057; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=Tj8XDkhPbWekl2pBA5xS12623XkxKRrkqcwSptMDOHw=; b=Mq8VtWaSJ+z+v4sHTpaXjC07YuYqEYdYqMaB4Adv9jkHWQLT7FKBy6D6 yOmMw4v+q2vqCRSB3LBCFCH9oliYxnTJATVPlyuI+UaEK33QDYBX81j/2 yDEAatSo9z/ipIDRYBWMKExHZrLRmFbOtMWBo+4Nhw+FL9mF9//deunbC Q=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgEFADE+I1GtJXG+/2dsb2JhbABEwD+BBxZzgh8BAQEEAQEBNzQLDAYBCBEEAQEBChQJKAYLFAkIAgQOBQiHeAMPDLBWhicNiVYEjDeCJiYLBwaCWWEDlFCNHoUVgweCJw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,693,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="178662509" Received: from rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com ([173.37.113.190]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 19 Feb 2013 09:00:53 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x04.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x04.cisco.com [173.36.12.78]) by rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r1J90r4I025572 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:00:53 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x05.cisco.com ([169.254.11.34]) by xhc-aln-x04.cisco.com ([173.36.12.78]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 03:00:53 -0600 From: "Wojciech Dec (wdec)" To: "DE CNODDER, STEFAAN (STEFAAN)" Thread-Topic: [ANCP] comments on draft-ietf-ancp-mib-an-10 Thread-Index: AQHOCfxkxE0hg9WvI06dFUQKsmGrTJh/h66ggAAziQCAAAc5gIAAOsgAgADppSCAAHm+gA== Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:00:52 +0000 Message-ID: <19F346EB777BEE4CB77DA1A2C56F20B3224723@xmb-aln-x05.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <5F657CFC59E51E4B842F0D51C19AC36CEF95@FR711WXCHMBA06.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.5.121010 x-originating-ip: [10.61.96.23] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <1C0BD2387A0A5D42B75B668F6B4E9841@cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "ancp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [ANCP] comments on draft-ietf-ancp-mib-an-10 X-BeenThere: ancp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Access Node Control Protocol working group mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:00:59 -0000 Hi, On 19/02/2013 09:48, "DE CNODDER, STEFAAN (STEFAAN)" wrote: >Hi, > >I think indeed that the document may be more explicit that it is only for >AN and not for NAS. However, introducing new terminology in a MIB >document is the wrong place. It is indeed a client-server protocol, but >saying that this is a client MIB while "client" has never been defined >before, is not going to make it clearer. I'm fine with that - just clarify. > >About the capabilities: it is a MIB for only RFC 6320. If other >documents introduce new functionality like PON or multicast, then this >requires a new MIB module that also defines objects to enable and disable >the capabilities of that functionality. We should have some brief text around that (ie advice on how this MIB module should be extended). On further inspection I also noticed that the current capability code points in the MIB do not align not only in naming but also in numbering with RFC6320. Would suggest that the two be aligned (which is better than getting an IANA registry for the MIB) Regards, Woj.. > >regards, >Stefaan > > >-----Original Message----- >From: ancp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ancp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >Tom Taylor >Sent: maandag 18 februari 2013 20:49 >To: Wojciech Dec (wdec) >Cc: ancp@ietf.org >Subject: Re: [ANCP] comments on draft-ietf-ancp-mib-an-10 > >That is, it applies to the Access Node side. > >On 18/02/2013 11:18 AM, Wojciech Dec (wdec) wrote: >> Yes, and in retrospect its rather unfortunate, since it is a >>client-server >> protocol with the functions in AN-NAS respectively. >> The main point though is that the ANCP MIB draft does not apply to the >> server side. >> >> Regards, >> Woj.. >> >> On 18/02/2013 16:52, "Tom Taylor" wrote: >> >>> Could I point out that the RFC 6320 does not talk about clients and >>> servers? It talks about the AN and the NAS. And either side can >>>initiate >>> transactions, depending on the transaction, so I think the >>>client-server >>> terminology would actually be confusing. Sorry, I should have noted >>>this >>> point earlier. >>> >>> On 18/02/2013 8:50 AM, Moti Morgenstern wrote: >... >_______________________________________________ >ANCP mailing list >ANCP@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ancp From stefaan.de_cnodder@alcatel-lucent.com Tue Feb 19 01:18:06 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ancp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ancp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 933B121F8CF2 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 01:18:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2ll0eqSE8ZYu for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 01:18:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from smail5.alcatel.fr (smail5.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.27]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B879821F85E7 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 01:18:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.61]) by smail5.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id r1J9I1Ub012762 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 19 Feb 2013 10:18:01 +0100 Received: from FR711WXCHHUB02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (135.239.2.112) by FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (135.120.45.61) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 10:17:45 +0100 Received: from FR711WXCHMBA06.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.2.242]) by FR711WXCHHUB02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.112]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 10:17:45 +0100 From: "DE CNODDER, STEFAAN (STEFAAN)" To: "Wojciech Dec (wdec)" Thread-Topic: [ANCP] comments on draft-ietf-ancp-mib-an-10 Thread-Index: AQHOCfxkxE0hg9WvI06dFUQKsmGrTJh/h66ggAAziQCAAAc5gIAAOsgAgADppSCAAHm+gP//jxiw Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:17:44 +0000 Message-ID: <5F657CFC59E51E4B842F0D51C19AC36CF007@FR711WXCHMBA06.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> References: <5F657CFC59E51E4B842F0D51C19AC36CEF95@FR711WXCHMBA06.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <19F346EB777BEE4CB77DA1A2C56F20B3224723@xmb-aln-x05.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <19F346EB777BEE4CB77DA1A2C56F20B3224723@xmb-aln-x05.cisco.com> Accept-Language: nl-BE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.12] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.69 on 155.132.188.13 Cc: "ancp@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [ANCP] comments on draft-ietf-ancp-mib-an-10 X-BeenThere: ancp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Access Node Control Protocol working group mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:18:06 -0000 Yes, I agree, naming and numbering of the capabilities should be made in li= ne with RFC 6320, something like: DslTopologyDiscovery (1) DslLineConfiguration (2) DslRemoteLineConnectivityTesting (4) instead of what is now in the MIB. Thanks, Stefaan -----Original Message----- From: Wojciech Dec (wdec) [mailto:wdec@cisco.com]=20 Sent: dinsdag 19 februari 2013 10:01 To: DE CNODDER, STEFAAN (STEFAAN) Cc: ancp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [ANCP] comments on draft-ietf-ancp-mib-an-10 Hi, On 19/02/2013 09:48, "DE CNODDER, STEFAAN (STEFAAN)" wrote: >Hi, > >I think indeed that the document may be more explicit that it is only for >AN and not for NAS. However, introducing new terminology in a MIB >document is the wrong place. It is indeed a client-server protocol, but >saying that this is a client MIB while "client" has never been defined >before, is not going to make it clearer. I'm fine with that - just clarify. > >About the capabilities: it is a MIB for only RFC 6320. If other >documents introduce new functionality like PON or multicast, then this >requires a new MIB module that also defines objects to enable and disable >the capabilities of that functionality. We should have some brief text around that (ie advice on how this MIB module should be extended). On further inspection I also noticed that the current capability code points in the MIB do not align not only in naming but also in numbering with RFC6320. Would suggest that the two be aligned (which is better than getting an IANA registry for the MIB) Regards, Woj.. > >regards, >Stefaan > > >-----Original Message----- >From: ancp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ancp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >Tom Taylor >Sent: maandag 18 februari 2013 20:49 >To: Wojciech Dec (wdec) >Cc: ancp@ietf.org >Subject: Re: [ANCP] comments on draft-ietf-ancp-mib-an-10 > >That is, it applies to the Access Node side. > >On 18/02/2013 11:18 AM, Wojciech Dec (wdec) wrote: >> Yes, and in retrospect its rather unfortunate, since it is a >>client-server >> protocol with the functions in AN-NAS respectively. >> The main point though is that the ANCP MIB draft does not apply to the >> server side. >> >> Regards, >> Woj.. >> >> On 18/02/2013 16:52, "Tom Taylor" wrote: >> >>> Could I point out that the RFC 6320 does not talk about clients and >>> servers? It talks about the AN and the NAS. And either side can >>>initiate >>> transactions, depending on the transaction, so I think the >>>client-server >>> terminology would actually be confusing. Sorry, I should have noted >>>this >>> point earlier. >>> >>> On 18/02/2013 8:50 AM, Moti Morgenstern wrote: >... >_______________________________________________ >ANCP mailing list >ANCP@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ancp From internet-drafts@ietf.org Sun Feb 24 11:55:47 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ancp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ancp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9470C21F8922; Sun, 24 Feb 2013 11:55:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.49 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.49 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.109, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UziWmkTU9bFb; Sun, 24 Feb 2013 11:55:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21B3221F90E2; Sun, 24 Feb 2013 11:55:47 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.40 Message-ID: <20130224195547.4883.27917.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 11:55:47 -0800 Cc: ancp@ietf.org Subject: [ANCP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions-09.txt X-BeenThere: ancp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Access Node Control Protocol working group mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 19:55:47 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Access Node Control Protocol Working Grou= p of the IETF. Title : Multicast Control Extensions for ANCP Author(s) : Francois Le Faucheur Roberta Maglione Tom Taylor Filename : draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions-09.txt Pages : 97 Date : 2013-02-24 Abstract: This document specifies the extensions to the Access Node Control Protocol required for support of the multicast use cases defined in the Access Node Control Protocol framework document and one additional use case described in this document. These use cases are organized into the following ANCP capabilities: o NAS-initiated multicast replication; o conditional access with white and black lists; o conditional access with grey lists; o bandwidth delegation; o committed bandwidth reporting. These capabilities may be combined according to the rules given in this specification. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions-09 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions-09 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From internet-drafts@ietf.org Sun Feb 24 13:10:46 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ancp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ancp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC32921F9081; Sun, 24 Feb 2013 13:10:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.497 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.497 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.102, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zAeXUODVx3uj; Sun, 24 Feb 2013 13:10:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2061D21F90D0; Sun, 24 Feb 2013 13:10:46 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.40 Message-ID: <20130224211046.17885.39615.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 13:10:46 -0800 Cc: ancp@ietf.org Subject: [ANCP] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ancp-pon-05.txt X-BeenThere: ancp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Access Node Control Protocol working group mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 21:10:46 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Access Node Control Protocol Working Grou= p of the IETF. Title : Applicability of Access Node Control Mechanism to PON ba= sed Broadband Networks Author(s) : Nabil Bitar Sanjay Wadhwa Deutsche Telekom Huawei Technologies Filename : draft-ietf-ancp-pon-05.txt Pages : 42 Date : 2013-02-24 Abstract: The purpose of this document is to provide applicability of the Access Node Control mechanism to Passive Optical Network (PON)-based broadband access. The need for an Access Node Control mechanism between a Network Access Server (NAS) and an Access Node Complex (a combination of Optical Line Termination (OLT) and Optical Network Termination (ONT) elements) is described in a multi-service reference architecture in order to perform QoS-related, service-related and Subscriber-related operations. The Access Node Control mechanism is also extended for interaction between components of the Access Node Complex (OLT and ONT). The Access Node Control mechanism will ensure that the transmission of information between the NAS and Access Node Complex (ANX) and between the OLT and ONT within an ANX does not need to go through distinct element managers but rather uses a direct device-to-device communication and stays on net. This allows for performing access link related operations within those network elements to meet performance objectives. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ancp-pon There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ancp-pon-05 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-ancp-pon-05 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com Sun Feb 24 13:59:42 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ancp@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ancp@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0F6A21F9109 for ; Sun, 24 Feb 2013 13:59:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.772 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.772 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.135, BAYES_20=-0.74, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9De4OuNlmPXe for ; Sun, 24 Feb 2013 13:59:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ia0-x22a.google.com (ia-in-x022a.1e100.net [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c02::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 039AC21F90DC for ; Sun, 24 Feb 2013 13:59:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ia0-f170.google.com with SMTP id k20so1967793iak.1 for ; Sun, 24 Feb 2013 13:59:41 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-antivirus :x-antivirus-status; bh=X7KXMYJhwl4tYNzwvQpFcqjhcuGbS0uOCpOiiapjJ10=; b=E4IMvgFHHl/qZVDgsemNF/GXmF3KaJx4fitggov2hl8V2cgMf3LRk4GPFQWXFNIwkv gi95SYZR0YSqfZ/PR3Wz/HyjKUFFtQp3Gp8UsPd2xn4+bIG60H7GhH/OLugDMdZKQjLy BjAn+AYXW36kz1xRl+wCClSPvL9QijthWUxV3gv1JVpPuY8QbKVpThFiZ3EmeS1u1tj7 g7h3AFulByfMzy1De5H+v9lL42e2J/po7j4Z70uN2xz+CCCIs30AKrCC2AzIVaQ5cCGf y20IGOYNDmTmS55jiZ5iBebfnwbJgkCUKjnd7kA1f+ECkNWTvg86E2q2IW/LT4CiitTT D7mw== X-Received: by 10.50.220.170 with SMTP id px10mr2399136igc.61.1361743181643; Sun, 24 Feb 2013 13:59:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (dsl-173-206-101-174.tor.primus.ca. [173.206.101.174]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id vb15sm4271722igb.9.2013.02.24.13.59.40 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 24 Feb 2013 13:59:41 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <512A8D4A.3000407@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 16:59:38 -0500 From: Tom Taylor User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130215 Thunderbird/17.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "ancp@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 130224-0, 24/02/2013), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Subject: [ANCP] -mc-extensions-09 X-BeenThere: ancp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Access Node Control Protocol working group mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 21:59:42 -0000 The only change made in this update was in Roberta Maglione's E-mail address and affiliation. I suspect the street address should also have been updated, but I only just thought of that. Tom Taylor