Please find attached the draft minutes form Dublin. Many thanks to Richard for acting as scribe.
Please post any comments to the list.
Regards
Matthew
<<ANCP Minutes 30 July 2008.txt>>
Director, technology & Standards
Alcatel-Lucent IP Division
---
This message is confidential and may contain privileged information. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to them) you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please delete it and notify the sender as soon as possible. Alcatel-Lucent does not accept any liability for any harm that may be caused to the recipient's system or data by this message. Please carry out virus and other such checks as you may consider appropriate.
Wednesday, July 30th, 2008 ? 13:00 ? 15:00
-----------------------------------------
CHAIRS: Wojciech Dec & Matthew Bocci
SCRIBE: Richard Pruss
WG Status and Update - Chairs
-----------------------------
MB ? Agenda bash, administrivia
MB ? Milestone update
MB ? ANCP Framework update
MB ? ANCP Protocol updated to v3, joint editor added Roberta Maglione
Sanjay questioned if PON is in scope. Chairs/General Discussion on PON. Summary is that working group is open and welcoming on submissions on all access technologies but the immediate focus and priority is to get the DSL work done.
Multicast Use Cases and Requirements - Roberta Maglione
(roberta.maglione at telecomitalia.it)
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-maglione-ancp-mcast-01.txt
---------------------------------------------------------
Tom Taylor ? Delegation? For white list it makes sense. For grey list it does not save any messaging. The bandwidth delegation makes not sense.
François La Feucher? If all groups where white and all were black. If we have for one user, most of the channels are white and one is grey then
it makes sense for all the groups to be handled on the access node.
For accounting reasons.
Tom Taylor ? If the flow that is requested is in the pre-allocated amount then the flow is allowed. It has nothing to do with flow accounting.
Francois LF ? Parked the discussion for the end in the interest of time.
Sanjay & Francois ? Discussion on the complexity of the messaging to satisfy the requirements. No real conclusion. Sanjay?s concern is that it is either static or complex. Francois feels there is only two models and that makes t simple
Francois LF ? The proposals are changes to the framework document to support the multicast use cases.
Peter A ? Clarification on the Conditional Access and CAC diagram.
Nabil ? Traffic reduction is it permanent and is their any check on the use.
Tom T ? The bandwidth delegation assumes that the system is ready to reserve some managed bandwidth.
Nabil ? The problem is for best effort flows they are dynamic and you cannot grab and release traffic. This would be allot of singnalling if the reservations are dynamic.
Tom T/Nabil/Francois ? The ANCP Framework document should add a note clarifying that the "AN Bandwidth Delegation" model is not easily compatible with dynamic shaping of non-video traffic by the NAS. More generally it would be useful for the framework to capture other pros/ cons/limitations of the various Multicast Admission Control model.
Stefan ? Question has flow groups been removed from the draft.
R ? Removed for condition access.
Stefan ? Flow groups do not exist anymore.
R ? Flow groups have been extended in this. This is an extension of flow groups.
Stefan ? Proposal to removed the words around flow groups and replaced with the delegated .
Woj ? How many have read, A good number.
Stefan ? Some concern on the complexity.
Chairs ? All future discussion is going to the mailing list.
ANCP Multicast Extensions ? Roberta Maglione
(Roberta.maglione at telecomitalia.it)
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ancp-mc-extensions-00
------------------------------------------------------
Next draft ANCP Multicast Extensions ? Roberta Maglione
Peter A ? remove the TCP header from the draft because it limits this to TCP
Woj ? while digging into the implementation this has come up
Peter A ? By using this you limit ANCP to TCP .
Woj ? There is no explanation of why the Type is needed
Peter ? this is in the encapsulation in GSMP
Woj ? Original intent of the header.
Peter ? It is not part of the header. It is part of another header, which defines the encapsulation. It is in the TCP encapsulation definition.
Chairs ? Take it to the list. Mc draft continues.
Tom T ? In RTP we have a requirement to randomise the Transaction ID.
Peter ? Says it may start at any point.
Tom T ? Says it needs to be measured against the security requirements to see if it should be a must.
Peter ? Ask why we would want to use the TLV as a target. Then if the value is fixed. It is really a fixed, why use a TLV.
Mark T ? Agreed clarified.
Tom T ? Added that this was effectively an addition to the header.
Woj ? What this proposal tries to get to is a famility of TLV?s called address types. Currently only one identitier ACI.
Peter ? now if we have definied it to one.
Woj ? How do address a group of ACI?s.,
Peter ? The ACI definition cannot be changed unless the base protocol is changed.
Peter ? If you can?t fit this in the 64 bytes of the ACI
Sanjay ? This is givng you an flexible container.
Peter ? The ACI is the flexible container.
Woj ? We are have to handle groups.
Peter ? This really does mean the basic protocol needs to change.
Tom T ? Access-Loop-Circit should be identifier type.
Peter ? This has to be learnt from the protocol.
This went to the list
R ? resumed covering the draft and finished with no more questions.
Chairs have a proposed path forward. Add two milestones.
- Accept WG- I-D ANCP extensions for multicast control. November
2008
- ANCP extensions for mulitcast control Last Call March 2009
ANCP base spec will not wait for the multicast spec. Long discussion and the points stood but conversation will continue on the list.
ANCP Framework and Requirements ? Stefaan de Cnodder
(stefaan.de_cnodder at alcatel-lucent.be)
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ancp-framework-06
-------------------------------------------------------
Peter ? The vlan binding is to make sure ANCP packets for the defined IP interface can only be received on the defined vlan, as specified in the DSLF requirements ?
Stefan - yes
Woj - to be continued on the list.
ANCP NAS and AN MIBs ? Stefaan de Cnodder (stefaan.de_cnodder at alcatel-lucent.be)
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-decnodder-ancp-mib-nas-01.txt
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ancp-mib-an-03
-----------------------------------------------------
Stefan ? struggling for reviewers of the MIb draft. Got three commits Tom, Sanjay and Peter.
ANCP Protocol Draft ? Sanjay Wadhwa (swadhwa at juniper.net)
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ancp-protocol-03
------------------------------------------------------
Vitali ? Does this preclude their use in the future.
Peter ? This can be defined in future drafts.
Vitali ? why specify it must be 0.
Tom T ? Make it a MUST for 0 else it will be used for other things.
Woj ? we should try use these fields for good uses.
Tom T - General comment is the PON document will teach how to change the base protocol for extensibility.
ANCP Applicability to PON ? Nabil Bitar (nabil.n.bitar at verizon.com) & Sanjay Wadhwa (swadhwa at juniper.net)
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bitar-wadhwa-ancp-pon-00.txt
-------------------------------------------------------------
Peter A -
No different between this and the current proposal?
line cut at 4.
Francois F - Hopefully it is the same.
Sanjay - bandwidth in the OLT is the new point
Toerless - Does the same benefits apply for using this as DSL>
Toerless - Is this a multi-vendor space
Toerless - Is the frameing fixed?
Toerless - please give more on the requirements for the next meeting
Woj ? lets focus this on what is PON specific.
Gisel ? PON is inherently multicast based.
Francois F ? Thanks the authors. Everything can be achieved except the flow in figure 8. Where the NAS has to query the OLT for admission for unicast.
Nabil ? This is a framework for us to be able to examin the applicability in PON.
Meeting ended out of time
_______________________________________________ ANCP mailing list ANCP at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ancp