Re: [ANCP] Events and event flags

["Wojciech Dec (wdec)" <wdec at cisco.com>]

Hi Tom,

I strongly believe that the messaging, besides some of the base header,
deriving from GSMPv3 are of little use. The approach you should consider
is along the lines of the Design Team proposal for multicast control. I
understand that an updated proposal from them is imminent (must be next
week at the latest), but you can observe and follow the concept followed
in the previous one:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ancp/current/msg00548.html

In more detail;
- Define message types which allow re-use across applications
- Define common TLV and wrapper TLVs used in messages.

In particular the flag field and result code ANCP inherited from GSMP in
the base header seem to be particularly unwieldy, and I would encourage
limiting their use or re-defining in a manner that does not cause
compatibility issues with existing ANCP implementations.
Could you share with us the events and flow control requirements that
you see?

Regards,
Woj.
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ancp-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ancp-bounces at ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Tom Taylor
> Sent: 21 June 2008 01:20
> To: ancp at ietf.org
> Subject: [ANCP] Events and event flags
> 
> I'm in the process of trying to define an extension to ANCP 
> to cover a multicast use case that isn't explicit in the 
> framework. I need to define several events (e.g. to request 
> more multicast bandwidth). Events seem to be tied closely to 
> event flags and flow control flags in GSMPv3, which puts a 
> sharp limit on the number of possible events due to limited 
> flag field lengths. Has this been thought through in ANCP? 
> What is the strategy, if any, for defining new events?
> 
> Tom Taylor
> _______________________________________________
> ANCP mailing list
> ANCP at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ancp
> 
_______________________________________________
ANCP mailing list
ANCP at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ancp