[08:07:43] --- AWGY has joined
[08:08:21] --- worley has joined
[08:08:24] --- ric@jabber.org.au has joined
[08:08:45] --- AWGY has left
[08:09:00] --- AWGY has joined
[08:09:06] --- bert has joined
[08:09:35] <ric@jabber.org.au> Woj updates on the milestones, some dates have changed, not on the ietf website yet, but it is agreed by the AD's.
[08:10:58] <ric@jabber.org.au> Update on the Framework and Requirements, accepted as a WG I-D
[08:12:00] <ric@jabber.org.au> Need definitions of requirements for the light weight transport protocol. Need some start on that.
[08:12:58] <ric@jabber.org.au> Stefan De Cnodder gives presentation on Framework and Requirements draft.
[08:13:53] <ric@jabber.org.au> http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07mar/slides/ancp-1.ppt
[08:16:04] --- AWGY has left
[08:18:25] <ric@jabber.org.au> M Dodge asks about the repetition of the repartition requirements.
[08:19:02] <ric@jabber.org.au> Woj feels that all the security pieces should go into the security document.
[08:19:30] --- m_ersue has joined
[08:19:32] <ric@jabber.org.au> ? feels that including all the security document into the fw document would be to much.
[08:20:50] <ric@jabber.org.au> Mark Townsley feels that requirements should not be trying to be in two documents.
[08:21:55] <ric@jabber.org.au> Matthew Bocci would like all the requirements in one document.
[08:22:32] --- AWGY has joined
[08:22:54] --- johnson has joined
[08:23:25] <ric@jabber.org.au> Threat analysis will result in requirements that need to be reflected into the Framework document
[08:25:38] <ric@jabber.org.au> H. Moustafa will have all the security requiements in the security document.
[08:26:32] <ric@jabber.org.au> Mark Townsley will lock the two documents together when they go for last call so the security area does not see a framework with the security requirements in it.
[08:27:24] <ric@jabber.org.au> Mark outline that the security parts can be optional for use but not optional for implimetation.
[08:27:54] <ric@jabber.org.au> Woj said that the DSLF reached the same conclusion in the last meeting of the DSLF
[08:31:50] <ric@jabber.org.au> Protocol Node requirements is an informational document so it does not strictly need to be very formal and avoid specifying node requirements as the point of the document is to get everyone on the same page enough to do the real work of engineering a protocol.
[08:32:00] <ric@jabber.org.au> Next presentation Multicast
[08:32:24] <ric@jabber.org.au> Slide in the Chair slides:
[08:32:33] <ric@jabber.org.au> http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07mar/slides/ancp-4.ppt
[08:33:08] <ric@jabber.org.au> Matthew Bocci chats through the slides.
[08:34:53] --- worley has left
[08:35:50] --- johnson has left
[08:36:32] <ric@jabber.org.au> Scot Brim ask a question if ACL is on the protocol.
[08:37:08] <ric@jabber.org.au> This seems to come down to a question of pre-provisioned or on-demand.
[08:37:45] <ric@jabber.org.au> Mark Townsley asked a question of what direction the provisioning was happening.
[08:39:40] <ric@jabber.org.au> Ley ask if CAC is only being discussed in the multicast context only or unicast CAC services as well.
[08:39:56] --- amy_zhao has joined
[08:41:15] <ric@jabber.org.au> Toerless makes the point that the CAC enforcement for multicast has to be in the network.
[08:41:47] <ric@jabber.org.au> Ley makes the point that some integration is needed as CAC needs the information of what multicast is occuring
[08:42:42] <ric@jabber.org.au> Ley points out that information delivering for what CAC information to unicast severs can be done with ANCP
[08:45:49] <ric@jabber.org.au> Francois Le Faucheur advocates that even if only the multicast is address care needs to be take to allow unicast services CAC
[08:47:50] <ric@jabber.org.au> Derek Harkiness
[08:49:20] <ric@jabber.org.au> Kurtes advocates for a virtualized the subscriber on the NAS
[08:50:44] <ric@jabber.org.au> Derek Harkiness through ANCP one can provide visibility of multicast CAC and that allows Unicast CAC by providing the visibility.
[08:51:09] <ric@jabber.org.au> Matthew Bocci this is close to the reporting use case of ANCP
[08:53:15] <ric@jabber.org.au> Francois Le Faucheur addresses Stephan's question on what is Unicase CAC. Either the NAS is involved or the NAS provides information to the CAC element.
[08:54:02] <ric@jabber.org.au> Kurt Lindqvist
[08:55:29] <ric@jabber.org.au> Woj suggest that some consensus exists for the combined access node and nac should look like a single element to external elements.
[08:56:51] <ric@jabber.org.au> ? suggests that a black box approach does not go far as engineering cannot be done with this blackbox.
[08:58:24] <ric@jabber.org.au> Morti Morgenstein educates that access node takes the decision and the NAS takes the decision in other deployments they see today
[08:59:32] <ric@jabber.org.au> Morti feels that both should be supported as both are in deployment.
[09:00:40] <ric@jabber.org.au> Matthew Bocci note that both use cases exist
[09:01:56] <ric@jabber.org.au> Toerless notes replication can happen in two places and the policy choices can happen in two places.
[09:02:42] <ric@jabber.org.au> Mark brings the conversation back to the architectural guideline that does not make the information in the system worse.
[09:05:11] <ric@jabber.org.au> Roberta Maglione brings the service provider perspective that brings the access node on the problem. Need the node from the access node, so that it adds the information to the BRAS.
[09:06:34] <ric@jabber.org.au> Morti Morgenstein makes the point that is some cases the policy can be delegated to the access node.
[09:07:31] <ric@jabber.org.au> Woj is focusing looking to get to what is the multicast use case in the network.
[09:09:12] <ric@jabber.org.au> Mark was the use cases to be guided by the architectural approach against the use case.
[09:09:27] <ric@jabber.org.au> Woj on steps:
[09:09:50] <ric@jabber.org.au> 1. need to get some text on the architecture document on the two boxes
[09:10:21] <ric@jabber.org.au> 2. need some text on the black box approach on multicast
[09:10:35] <ric@jabber.org.au> 3. then more detailed solution use cases can be proposed
[09:11:33] <ric@jabber.org.au> Nicolas asked a question if multicast group excludes source specific multicast
[09:13:09] <ric@jabber.org.au> Derek Harkiness - where you identify a multicast group both should be identified as G and S,G
[09:16:23] <ric@jabber.org.au> Matthew Bocci break the use cases into a small set of applications for this set of use cases.
[09:18:06] <ric@jabber.org.au> Mark Townsley suggest that whatever is missing in a use case gets transports in ANCP might fix the requirement.
[09:19:34] <ric@jabber.org.au> Woj question to Mark. There is some work in the MBONED that covers some of the authorisation, accounting and how the two groups could work together.
[09:20:54] <ric@jabber.org.au> Hiroshi Ohta co-chair of MBONED is gathering requirements for similar space at the moment.
[09:21:54] <ric@jabber.org.au> Mark instructs chairs from both groups send emails to the other groups on the activity that is occurring the same space.
[09:22:31] <ric@jabber.org.au> Stefan De Cnodder gives presentation on ANCP MIB
[09:22:45] <ric@jabber.org.au> http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07mar/slides/ancp-0.ppt
[09:29:24] <ric@jabber.org.au> Question on partition id. The question is on the default value for the partition id.
[09:29:32] --- johnson has joined
[09:29:40] <ric@jabber.org.au> why do we have a default?
[09:30:59] <ric@jabber.org.au> Woj comments we should not exclude other methods.
[09:32:50] <ric@jabber.org.au> Moti question on partition id. Why are the id's needed.
[09:34:06] <ric@jabber.org.au> Woj, partitions allow partitioning of the lines to controllers.
[09:34:29] --- marius71 has joined
[09:35:21] <ric@jabber.org.au> Woj noted functional partitioning came up before and was not required.
[09:36:48] <ric@jabber.org.au> Bert asking if separate agents will be serving the partitions
[09:38:07] <ric@jabber.org.au> This has a effect on index in the MIBs
[09:38:41] <ric@jabber.org.au> Hassnaa Moustafa presents on security requirments and threads draft
[09:38:55] <ric@jabber.org.au> http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07mar/slides/ancp-2.ppt
[09:47:07] <ric@jabber.org.au> Derek Harkness presents on ANCP protocol draft
[09:47:15] <ric@jabber.org.au> http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07mar/slides/ancp-3.ppt
[09:50:45] <ric@jabber.org.au> Woj question on framework stuff in the draft?
[09:51:04] <ric@jabber.org.au> Mark wants more people to read and comment on the draft.
[09:56:22] <ric@jabber.org.au> Some discussion between the author and chairs on small editorial pieces in the draft.
[09:58:04] <ric@jabber.org.au> Woj Dec presents on ANCP versioning strategy slide on the chairs slides.
[09:58:54] --- johnson has left
[10:00:13] <ric@jabber.org.au> Woj Dec presents on TLVs slide in the chairs slides deck.
[10:01:33] --- AWGY has left
[10:01:57] <ric@jabber.org.au> Derek Harkness questions on what causes the conflicts.
[10:03:21] --- amy_zhao has left
[10:03:21] <ric@jabber.org.au> Frantic search for blue sheets and the session closes.
[10:03:27] --- marius71 has left
[10:04:09] --- m_ersue has left
[10:06:58] --- bert has left
[10:08:12] --- ric@jabber.org.au has left
[10:21:14] --- amy_zhao has joined
[10:26:06] --- amy_zhao has left
[11:36:09] --- bert has joined
[11:36:15] --- bert has left
[11:51:38] --- woj has joined
[11:52:37] --- woj has left