Ben, Thanks for reviewing. Below my feedback on the "open" items.
> -- 4.7.8: > > The draft should describe (or reference a description of) the > wholesale model, how it differs from other models, and what the > relationship between wholesalers and retailers. This sounds like a > business model, but what does it mean technically? > > > <Sven> I will add a reference to Broadband Forum TR-058, TR-059 and > TR-101, which describe a DSL broadband access architecture and how it > enables wholesaling. This helps--but I am skeptical that the average reader will follow up on those references. I think a short (i.e. few paragraphs) high-level description of the technical aspects of the wholesale model would be useful in this draft. <Sven> Fair point, I will write a paragraph and add it to an updated draft. > -- 4.3, first bullet: > > Can you characterize how "limited"? > > <Sven> Basically, the protocol must be designed to only require a > software upgrade, not a hardware upgrade. Perhaps the requirement > should > be reworded to the following: > "The ANCP MUST be simple and lightweight enough to allow an > implementation on Access Nodes that does not specifically require > additional control plane resources (e.g. additional CPU and memory > requirements). " This still seems vague to me without some characterization of a typical access node platform. I would be surprised if there are not a broad range of device "size" for this sort of thing. I'm not looking for precise hardware specs, but it would help to have some idea of the typical range of CPU and memory resources you are thinking about. <Sven> I'm not sure we should start writing about hardware components / memory sizes / CPU types in the draft. How about I write the following: "The ANCP MUST be simple and lightweight enough to allow an implementation on Access Nodes to run without specifically requiring a hardware upgrade" > -- 4.6.2, 1st bullet: > > SHOULD use, or SHOULD be able to use? If the former, why? What harm is > done by using separate facilities? > > <Sven> The purpose of this requirement is to state that there is no > need > to have dedicated links between the AN and the NAS just for the sake > of > running the ANCP protocol. This is not really a protocol design > requirement, but rather a deployment guideline. I will change "SHOULD" > to "should". The previous paragraph talks about some deployment considerations--I took this paragraph as suggesting that implementors allow certain configurations, rather than that deployments should use certain configurations. Am I misunderstanding the intent? <Sven> The first bullet is a deployment consideration but has no impact on the protocol design. I will add a note to the requirement to make this clear. > -- 4.6.3: > > Is this reasonably in scope? This sounds more like a product > requirement than a protocol requirements. (This comment replies to > several other requirements concerning interactions with network > management.) > > <Sven> It indeed is a nodal requirement. As it is intended as a > guideline, the nodal requirements always use uncapitalized "must" / > "should". Okay. (Remember that the comment applied to other statements about network management as well.) <Sven> I cross-checked the latest version - all nodal requirements related to network management use uncapitalized "must" / "should". So this is covered. _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
