Re: [ANCP] [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ancp-mc-extensions-01.txt]

[Francois Le Faucheur <flefauch at cisco.com>]

Tom and all,

> Francois had a hand in getting the main ideas into shape, but due to  
> circumstances on my side he didn't have a chance to read and approve  
> the final version of the draft.

I reviewed the final text of section 6. In general, it is in line with  
the discussions & conclusions Tom and I had.

Below are a the most important comments that I'd like to make sure we  
agree on:

* 6.2.1. The case where CAC is done on NAS is clearly implied but not  
explicit. I think we want to be explicit about it. So I propose:
REPLACE:
"The NAS MAY enable admission control at the AN for Nas-initiated  
replication.  To do this, it MUST include the MRepCtl-CAC TLV in a  
Provisioning message sent to the AN.  It MUST also include a Bandwidth- 
Allocation TLV in a Port Management message for each access line.
"
BY:
"The NAS MAY perform admission control of the NAS-initiated  
replication. Alternatively, the NAS MAY enable admission control at  
the AN for NAS-initiated replication.  To do this, it MUST include the  
MRepCtl-CAC TLV in a Provisioning message sent to the AN and it MUST  
include a Bandwidth-Allocation TLV in a Port Management message for  
each access line.
"

* 6.2.3.1. The case where CAC is done on NAS is clearly implied but  
not explicit. I think we want to be explicit about it. So I propose:
REPLACE:
"The NAS can enable admission control at the AN for Grey-listed flows.  
To do this, it MUST include the MRepCtl-CAC TLV in a Provisioning  
message sent to the AN.  It MUST also provide a Bandwidth-Allocation  
TLV in a Port Management message for each access line.
"
BY:
"The NAS MAY perform admission control for grey-listed flows.  
Alternatively, the NAS MAY enable admission control at the AN for Grey- 
listed flows. To do this, it MUST include the MRepCtl-CAC TLV in a  
Provisioning message sent to the AN and MUST also provide a Bandwidth- 
Allocation TLV in a Port Management message for each access line.
"


* Result Codes
On Tom's proposal, -01 reverted to using Result values AckAll & NAck  
instead of Ignore (as was done in previous versions) with a few  
commands where AckAll & NAck seem ed to match teh desired response  
behavior. I don't feel strongly about that, but want to point out this  
is a departure from what was agreed before and I am requesting WG  
opinions on that.


* Response to Multicast Replication Control:
This comment assumes that the WG agrees that Results AckAll & NAck is  
the right approach for some commands like Multicast Replication Control.
Tom and I agreed that the NAS decides whether to use AckAll or NAck.
This has been reflected correctly in 4.3.1:
"In that case, the NAS MUST set the Result field to AckAll (0x2) or  
Nack (0x1) according to its requirements."
But it has not yet been reflected in the multiple relevant subsections  
under section 6.
For example, section 6.2.3.2 says:
" It MUST then send a Multicast Admission Control message to the NAS  
indicating the deletion."
While this should depend on Result Code.
Also, section 6.3.2 says:
"If the flow was Grey-listed, the AN MUST then send a Multicast  
Admission Control message to the NAS indicating the deletion.  Thus  
the AN needs to retain the fact that
   the flow was Grey-listed for the life of the flow."
Again, I think responding would depend on the Result field. And I  
think the AN need not retain the fact that the flow was Grey-Listed.


* section 6.3.3:
it says:
"If either or both conditional access capabilities are combined with  
the delegated bandwidth capability, the AN always does admission
   control. "
I think this text is not correct and needs to be updated to reflect  
the White-List-CAC TLV and the MRepCtl-CAC TLV


There is also a bunch of editos I will share off-line with co-authors  
for next rev.

Francois