Hi Joe,
FWIW, rfc4026#section-6.1 defines AC as follows:
==
6.1. Attachment Circuit (AC)
In a Layer 2 VPN the CE is attached to PE via an Attachment Circuit
(AC). The AC may be a physical or logical link.
==
which we can generalize as:
==
6.1. Attachment Circuit (AC)
The CE is attached to PE via an Attachment Circuit
(AC). The AC may be a physical or logical link.
==
We don't have an entry for AC because we thought that the meaning is already
conveyed in the CE/PE entries:
==
Customer Edge (CE): An equipment that is dedicated to a particular
customer and is directly connected to one or more Provider Edges
(PEs) via attachment circuits (ACs)...
Provider Edge (PE): An equipment owned and managed by the service
provider that can support multiple services (e.g., VPNs) for
different customers. A PE is directly connected to one or more
CEs via ACs.
==
Please let us know if you still prefer having the entry added. Thanks.
Cheers,
Med
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : OPSAWG <[email protected]> De la part de Joe Clarke
> (jclarke)
> Envoyé : mercredi 18 mai 2022 15:25
> À : tom petch <[email protected]>; Joe Clarke (jclarke)
> <[email protected]>; [email protected]
> Objet : Re: [OPSAWG] WG LC: draft-ietf-opsawg-sap
>
> On 5/18/22 06:16, tom petch wrote:
> > From: OPSAWG <[email protected]> on behalf of Joe Clarke
> > (jclarke) <[email protected]>
> > Sent: 17 May 2022 16:48
> >
> > I am closing the WG LC for this document. The LC prompted some
> good
> > comments from DIR reviews and a comprehensive review from Adrian
> which
> > led to a TEAS cross-review.
> >
> > The biggest discussion came between Tom P and the WG/authors on
> the
> > definition of what a SAP is in the vein of this doc. While
> some of his
> > suggestions have made it into the latest revision of the
> document, I
> > am not certain this discussion has been fully resolved.
> >
> > The last email I saw was
> > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/D-
> z_rGqFl8V47fHlAkwSqiOxEDk/.
> > Is this resolved?
> >
> > <tp>
> > well, look at Mach Chen's Rtgdir review which. for me, covers
> the same ground and suggests that it is unresolved. I am perhaps
> more familiar than Mach with the terminology of the various TEAS
> documents and so am not quite so puzzled as he is but would say we
> both share the same puzzlement.
>
> The authors added some clarifying text to the definition of a SAP
> in the terminology section based on Mach's and your reviews. It
> is a bit more descriptive (though I certainly would want
> Attachment Circuit called out as a term). Have you reviewed -05
> to see if it addresses your concerns?
>
> Joe
>
> >
> > I was looking at another I-D by the author, draft-ietf-opsawg-
> l2nm, and was struck by the use of the term 'service' in that I-D
> which I again was unclear about the meaning of, but in that I-D.
> it is not such a barrier to my understanding.
>
>
> >
> > Tom Petch
> >
> > Based on that, we can take -05 forward to the IESG once we get a
> > shepherd. But this point seems important to resolve.
> >
> > Joe
> >
> > On 4/22/22 15:07, Joe Clarke (jclarke) wrote:
> >> Hello, Opsawg. The last round of comments on this draft have
> been
> >> discussed/resolved, and we'd like to kick off a three-week WG
> LC for
> >> this work. Please provide any and all feedback on list before
> the
> >> end of the day May 13, 2022.
> >>
> >> Authors, if you have suggestions for a good shepherd for this
> >> document, we'd love to hear them.
> >>
> >> I have requested reviews from Ops and Routing on this work.
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >> Joe
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> OPSAWG mailing list
> >> [email protected]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OPSAWG mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OPSAWG mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce
message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou
falsifie. Merci.
This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete
this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been
modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
