RE: Draft minutes from Seoul: Need enhancements
"Vishal Sharma" <v.sharma@ieee.org> Sat, 13 March 2004 02:20 UTC
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA07113 for <ccamp-archive@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Mar 2004 21:20:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B1ylk-0003Sl-00 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Mar 2004 21:20:56 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B1ykn-0003JT-00 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Mar 2004 21:19:59 -0500
Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] ident=mailnull) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B1yjm-0003H2-00 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Mar 2004 21:18:54 -0500
Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 4.30; FreeBSD) id 1B1yLK-0003nC-EH for ccamp-data@psg.com; Sat, 13 Mar 2004 01:53:38 +0000
Received: from [66.163.169.227] (helo=smtp107.mail.sc5.yahoo.com) by psg.com with smtp (Exim 4.30; FreeBSD) id 1B1yL8-0003hJ-QZ for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Mar 2004 01:53:26 +0000
Received: from unknown (HELO RAKHILAPTOP) (vsharma87@63.202.177.83 with login) by smtp107.mail.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Mar 2004 01:53:25 -0000
From: Vishal Sharma <v.sharma@ieee.org>
To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Cc: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>
Subject: RE: Draft minutes from Seoul: Need enhancements
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 17:53:15 -0800
Message-ID: <MMECLKMDFPCEJFECIBCMMEMKEGAA.v.sharma@ieee.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <06bd01c4083e$a603d4c0$1100050a@Puppy>
Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Just want to let you know that there are gaps in the minutes, with respect to the comments I made on various other drafts, and what was said in response to queries on draft-achille-inter-area-protection, which I had presented. I will be sending the more accurate text to help complete the minutes. -Vishal > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org]On > Behalf Of Adrian Farrel > Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 6:30 AM > To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org > Subject: Draft minutes from Seoul > > > Very many thanks to Eric Gray for doing the hard work and > for supplying an excellent set of minutes. > > There are a couple of gaps. Please let me know what you said (or > want you want recorded > :-). > > Comments as soon as possible, please. > > Thanks, > Adrian > > Common Control and Measurement Plane WG (ccamp) > > THURSDAY, March 4 at 0900-1130 > =============================== > > CHAIRS: Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net> > Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> > > AGENDA: > > === > Group Admin > --- > Chairs > Admin - Nothing much to say (in English anyway) > - In Korean, however, the following was said: > "Jigeumbuteo CCAMP meetingeul sijakhagesumnida". > > Agenda bash (5 mins) - No changes > Status of WG drafts and milestones > Adrian's slides showed that we do have some draft > congestion in the WG. > - RFC editor queue > - status of IANA for SONET/SDH > Kireeti talked about an issue with SONET/SDH IANA > assignments > - need a means to get early assignments. > There is WIP to accomplish this, and it is moving > ahead. > - future allocation of "experimental" values > > Liaisons > --- > Marco Carugi talked about work in SG-13 (SG13 liaison). > He covered topics, new study areas, timescales, objectives > and status. They are also looking for people interested in > doing work in these areas. > > An L1 VPN questionnaire and framework draft were attached > to the liaison. > > Tomonori Takeda talked about the technical issues and > details of the work. > > Monique Morrow had a couple of clarification for Marco - > When will the consent portion of the work be done in the > ITU? > > Marco said that the different pieces of work were > progressing at different speeds. Some material is > already embodied in recommendations. The next SG13 > meetings are in June and September. > > Dimitri Papadimitriou asked if the liaison could include > a summarization of the purpose and intent of the liaison. > > Kireeti answered. If CCAMP's rechartering this month > results in the addition of L1VPNs to the charter, then > a Liaison response from the IETF will include this > information, plus a request for a cooperative effort, > preferably along the lines of the ASON routing work, > wherein the ITU-T defines the requirements and the IETF > does the protocol extensions. > > Alex Zinin said that we will have to make a decision at > some point as to whether or not we want to do this work > here. > > Someone from NTT raised a point that was not captured in > the minutes. > > Deborah Brungard said that there is work and some synergy > and that we should continue to work on this. > > Monique Morrow agrees that we should work on that. > > Marco added some comments that were not captured in the > minutes. > > Malcolm Betts said he also feels that we should do this. > > Adrian took a quick poll and it seems as if nobody is > against doing this work. > > Kireeti reminded people to continue this discussion on > the list. > > --- > Lyndon Ong talked about work in SG-15 (3 liaisons). > > Liaisons were on ASON routing requirements, response to > comments on Q14 for G.7713.2 and comments on the CCAMP > ASON signaling requirements draft. > > Lyndon spent much of the time on the details of response > to comments on Q14. It seems that some of the differences > in architectural models revolve around "end-to-end" and > "call segment" operating models. > > Kireeti asked for the reply by date. > > Lyndon did not have that. > > Steve Trowbridge said that the meeting starts on April > 19th > > Dimitri had a question on the deadline. Isn't there a > similar deadline on (G.7713). > > Lyndon said that he had not gone into that. He gave a > reason, but this was not captured in the minutes. > > Deborah said that the liaison for 7713.2 does not say any > thing about convergence. > > Lyndon said that they are still looking for a "meeting > of the minds". > > Deborah said that there is an issue with G.7713.2 because > of compatibility. > > Lyndon said that yes there has been a lot of discussion > of compatibility questions and requirements. > > Kireeti said that we should not discuss this here. > > Steve Trowbridge added some comments that were not > captured in the minutes. > > Kireeti asked the WG to take this discussion to the list > and try to keep that discussion on a productive basis. > > Adrian said that he wanted to recognize the efforts of > the ITU folks in this work. > > === > ASON Requirements and Solutions > --- > Dimitri Papadimitriou presented status of ASON Signaling > Requirements (draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-reqts-05.txt. > > The requirements were driven by last years liaison from > the ITU. > > After this meeting, Dimitri would like to re-spin the > draft and have a two week last call. > > Lyndon said he wants to capture the requirement - whether > or not we will work on it here. > > Kireeti said that we first need to understand importance > of this and then we can look to the ADs for guidance on > handling this. He also said that we should take some time > to work out what we want to say to the ITU when we include > the current draft. > > --- > Dimitri Papadimitriou gave status ASON Signaling Solutions > (draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-rsvp-te-ason-01.txt) status. > > He would like feedback on whether or not the current draft > deals correctly with the session attribute. > > His objective at this point is to try to have last call > on this > > Lyndon suggested that we might remove the comparison with > G.7713 from the draft. > > Adrian asked if this meant that the interworking draft > for RFC3473/4 interworking was now obsolete. > > Lyndon said maybe, if interworking is removed as a > requirement. > > --- > Lou Berger talked about Egress Control - > draft-berger-gmpls-egress-control-01.txt - > > Original egress label control became explicit label > control. This draft attempts to capture the original > intent. > > He wants to know if the WG feels that this is ready to > be a BCP and what the chairs think the next steps should > be. > > Lou re-iterated that the purpose and scope of the draft > is for clarification. He does not see any value in adding > to this intent or combining it with other work. > > Adrian then took a poll and nobody objected to take this > on as a WG item (more than a third were in favor). > > --- > Lyndon Ong went over status on ASON Routing Requirements - > draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-reqts-02.txt > > He includes in his presentation his conclusions as to what > there is agreement that stuff is missing and areas in which > there is still contention. > > Kireeti asked Lyndon to more formally open this discussion > on the mailing list. > > Vishal Sharma said that he supports this. > > Kireeti said he would like - after checking with the AD - > that we should take this work to the IS-IS and OSPF WGs. > > Alex Zinin said this is a good idea. > > === > Tunnel Trace > --- > Ron Bonica presented status on draft-bonica-tunproto-05.txt > > The solution is very similar to Trace-Route but does not > require that each node in a tunnel supports TTL decrement. > > He gave a few examples as to how the idea in the draft > will work in a few scenarios. > > There are a couple of outstanding issues: > - trace requires a route to tunnel head end > - integration with LSP ping. > > He would like to get the draft accepted as a WG draft. > > Yakov asked what SPs use today for tunnel tracing. > > Ron said that in some case people can use ICMP for MPLS. > > Yakov then asked if we could get a BCP on what people are > doing. > > Ron asked if he should resubmit his earlier draft on > this. > > Kireeti said that we do not want to decide that now. > > === > Protection and Restoration > --- > Dimitri Papadimitriou presented status on the work of the > Protection and Restoration Team - specifically: > 1) draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-analysis-02.txt > 2) draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-functional-01.txt > 3) draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-terminology-03.txt > 4) draft-lang-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-e2e-signaling-02.txt > > He gave estimates on the timing for each of the above > drafts (estimated completion dates). > > He outlined the changes to the e2e signaling ID (draft 4, > above). > > He encouraged the WG to really read the documents and > comment. > > Kireeti polled for consensus on the following: > > a) Analysis - last call? Some support, no objection > b) Functional - last call? Some support, no objection > c) Terminology - last call? Some support, no objection > d) e2e Signaling - WG document? Some support, no object > > People at the microphone were asked to take their > questions to the list. > > --- > Lou Berger presented an overview of work on Segment > Recovery - draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-segment-recovery-00.txt > > He also talked about what still needs to be done (next > steps), including more usage scenarios, more explanatory > text and see if the WG will adopt this work. > > Arthi Ayyangar asked if the association object is required > even if we are only doing segment recovery (as opposed to > e2e). She had follow up questions that Kireeti asked her > to take to the list. > > Adrian polled for support of accepting this as a WG draft. > There was moderate support and no objection. > > === > Inter-Area/AS > --- > Arthi Ayyangar talked about the status of the merged draft > on Inter-area/AS signaling - > draft-vasseur-ccamp-inter-area-as-te-00.txt > > The draft currently represents a full merge - work is still > required to strip out redundant and unneeded text. > > She said that the authors encourage people to come forward > with their comments. She would also like to see if there > is interest in this work becoming a WG document. > > Vishal Sharma said that he supports separating some of the > path computation mechanisms from the rest of the document > and removal of applicability text. > > Dimitri agreed on the subject of separating the document > and made some suggestions for clarification of the draft. > > Arthi asked that Dimitri take his specific comments to > the list. > > Kireeti said that he agrees that the document needs to be > split - one as a signaling and another (informational) to > provide examples for path computation. He also said that > we need a separate applicability document. > > --- > Vishal Sharma talked about work on Inter-area path > protection > draft-dachille-inter-area-path-protection-00.txt > > He provided a brief overview of how it works, and showed > how it relates to other work in progress. He also listed > the next steps. > > Zafar Ali asked how this would work if there is a failure > at the time during which the backup path is being setup. > > Zafar and Vishal chatted for a while and then Kireeti > asked them to take the discussion to the list. > > Dimitri asked why the document is so focused on > optimization. > > Kireeti asked that further discussion on this should be > taken to the list. > > Also, he said that Dimitri had a good point - we need to > define criteria on which any optimization is based. > > === > Control Pane Resilience, Hello Protocol and Graceful Restart > --- > Young Hwa Kim gave a presentation on Requirements for the > Resilience of Control Plane in GMPLS - > draft-kim-ccamp-cpr-reqts-00.txt > > He described the reasons why control plane resilience is > needed. > > Zafar asked how control plane resilience is different from > anything else in IP. > > Steve Trowbridge said that their is also some work in this > area in the ITU and he would try to get this in as a > liaison as soon as possible. > > Kireeti said that this is an important discussion and > there are a lot of things to do. Specific topics should be > raised on the list when appropriate. > > --- > Lou Berger went over Extensions to GMPLS RSVP Graceful > Restart > draft-aruns-ccamp-rsvp-restart-ext-00 > > He emphasized that egress restart is already covered in > RFC3473 and this work has no effect on that functionality. > He gave a brief overview and listed open issues. > > Next steps include merging with other restart drafts and > seeing if this work can become a WG draft. > > Arthi said that she feels that the document focuses too > much on the ERO. She feels that the draft should address > other issues and concerns with the mechanism. > > Lou asked if she would like to contribute text. > > The chairs then asked for other discussion to go to the > list. > > --- > Zafar Ali talked about Extensions to GMPLS RSVP Graceful > Restart > draft-rahman-ccamp-rsvp-restart-extensions-00.txt > > Kireeti said that he appreciated the honesty of the > authors in acknowledging other work. > > Nurit Sprecher asked about the relationship to FRR and > similar issues. > > Adrian agreed that these were important issues and had > been raised on the list in recent days. He asked the > authors to make sure that they cover the points in the > draft. > > --- > Zafar then covered modifications to Hello procedures > 1) draft-ali-ccamp-rsvp-node-id-based-hello-00.txt > 2) draft-ali-ccamp-rsvp-hello-gr-admin-00.txt > > He wants to go forward with draft 1 above. > > Adrian polled and there was some interest and no strong > objection. > > Kireeti said that this work cannot be informational if > it has - or proposes - changes to a standard. > > Zafar also wants draft 2 to be a WG document. > > Kireeti said that we need to take this to the list, but > Zafar also needs to socialize the work he is doing so that > people may decide whether or not this is work we want to > do. > > === > Everything Else > --- > Emmanuel Dotaro gave status of Multi-region protection - > draft-vigoureux-shiomoto-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-04.txt > > He briefly covered changes since previous versions. > > He proposes that we may need to make changes to the > charter to include all of this work. > > Adrian suggested that the authors need to get more people > involved in this important work and revisit this later. > > --- > Jean-Louis Le Roux - Advertizing TE Capabilities in IGPs > draft-vasseur-ccamp-isis-te-caps-00.txt > > He would like to have this accepted as a WG document. > > Adrian asked to hold off on this until after the OSPF talk > below. > > --- > Seisho Yasukawa > draft-vasseur-ccamp-ospf-te-caps-00.txt > > He would like to have this accepted as a WG document. > > Regarding both drafts, Kireeti is not sure that this work > belongs in this WG. The decision is driven by the > generality of its applicability. If we do take it on, their > needs to be a functional specification (independent of IGP) > as well. > > He asked that further discussion be taken to the list. > > --- > The Following presentations were postponed as we ran out > of time. Adrian made a couple of brief comments as follows: > --- > Zafar Ali - Explicit Resource Control and Tracking > draft-zamfir-explicit-resource-control-bundle-03.txt > > This work concerns identification of component links in > EROs and RROs. > > A small group is currently examining other issues > concerning identification of component links in all > aspects of GMPLS. A draft is expected soon. Please mail > Adrian or the list, if you want to be involved in this > work. > > --- > Lou Berger - Alarm Reporting > draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec-01.txt > > This draft is stable and complete in the view of the > authors. > > A quick poll showed some support for this being a WG > document, and no opposition. This will be taken to the > list. >
- Draft minutes from Seoul Adrian Farrel
- RE: Draft minutes from Seoul: Need enhancements Vishal Sharma
- RE: Draft minutes from Seoul Vishal Sharma
- Re: Draft minutes from Seoul Dimitri.Papadimitriou
- Re: Draft minutes from Seoul Kireeti Kompella