Node ID Hello [Was: Re: Draft minutes from Tove]

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

You're right. It was published on 26th October, but that means it must have been submitted
before then.

Can you remind me? This revision was to address all of the WG last call comments; yes?

Can you summarise the changes you made for the list, please.

Thanks,
Adrian
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "dimitri papadimitriou" <[e-mail]>
To: "Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>
Cc: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 9:20 PM
Subject: Re: Draft minutes from Tove


> hi adrian,
>
> a small comment:
>
> > Adrian - Note: Node_Id based Hello has not been updated before
> > deadline
>
> i mentioned that the update of the Node_Id based Hello document has been
> effectively submitted before the deadline
>
> thanks,
> - dimitri.
>
> Adrian Farrel wrote:
>
> > Hi ccamp!
> > Thanks to Lyndon Ong, Deborah Brungard, and Dimitri Papadimitriou we
> > can now read about the ccamp meeting, IETF61.
> > Please provide your comments no later than 3rd December if you miss any
> > important wording (or you like to change the complete meeting;-)
> > / Tove
> > Tove Madsen
> > Acreo AB
> > [e-mail]
> > ===
> > 61st IETF CCAMP Minutes
> > 11/11/2004
> > Minutes taken by
> > Lyndon Ong, Deborah Brungard, Dimitri Papadimitriou
> >
> > 1. Admin and agenda bash - Chairs (5 min)
> > Agenda bashing - no changes
> > 2. Status of WG drafts - Adrian (10 min)
> > Drafts - now unblocked, however the removal of the MPLS bundling draft has
> > caused another snag. We have got two new RFCs, Architecture (3945) and
> > SONET/SDH Extensions (3946).  Six drafts are in the queue.  Five are in
> > IETF
> > Last Call, two are in IESG review.  15 active drafts - if you want a draft
> > adopted as WG draft, let's finish these first!  Tunnel trace in particular
> > seems to have very little interest - will be discussed wrt to rechartering.
> > Overall status: almost all milestones completed, should recharter or close
> > in March '04!
> > Lou - slide does not list all 15 drafts - others are still active? In
> > particular Alarm_Spec
> > Adrian said no intention to exclude, asked if implementation on alarm
> > draft,
> > Lou said at least one, possibly two, Kireeti said only need one, so Ok
> > to go
> > forward.
> > Adrian - Note: Node_Id based Hello has not been updated before deadline
> > Adrian - Milestones and re-chartering will be covered at the end of the
> > meeting.
> > 3. Link Bundling - Zafar Ali
> > -- Issues with current RFCs and drafts
> > -- Draft removed from the RFC editor's queue
> > -- Issues with scooping type 4/5 TLVs for IF_ID_RSVP_HOP and
> > IF_ID_ERROR_SPEC, also recording of route
> > -- Plan to address first two issues in an updated draft but component link
> > recording will remain outside the scope of the bundling draft.  Will allow
> > but recommend against use of types 4/5.
> > -- Work on recording/explicit control will be done in a separate ID.  Home
> > in MPLS or CCAMP?
> > -> see slides
> > -- Plans
> > Pulled from queue (reviewed slides)
> > -- Adrian: procedure -> MPLS WG own document. Do review on what happens in
> > this WG
> > Note: speed is really important as we have multiple blocking documents in
> > the CCAMP WG queue.
> > -- Kireeti - this is not free for all on the bundling draft - change to be
> > proposed and to be sent on the list (delta only)
> > George: as MPLS chair, MPLS group plans to do updates quickly - considered
> > as last call comments
> >
> > 4. ASON Signaling Solutions - Dimitri P (5min)
> > <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-rsvp-te-ason-02.
> >
> > txt>
> > <http://www.olddog.co.uk/draft-dimitri-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-eval-00.txt>
> >
> > -- Mention OIF response is on the way
> > -- ASON signaling - no updates but lots of thinking esp. call setup message
> > naming (Notify vs. specialized message), desire not to "piggyback" call
> > information in the connection message.  Expect finalized draft around
> > Christmas time.
> > -- ASON routing solutions design team
> > - Evaluation of common "pattern" has taken time, evaluation document should
> > be issued by end- November.
> > - Model shown - use of terminology - what is TE Router ID, what is OSPF
> > Router ID?
> > - Further considerations - control plane does not transport the actual
> > transport plane ids, but its view of the transport plane, using an
> > associated IP addressing space.
> > - No internal structure is associated with an abstract node.
> > - Hierarchy focus is on exchange of information between peers.
> > - Representation of bandwidth needs further thought.
> > -- Adrian - it seems the DT has been making good progress, CCAMP WG has
> > unfortunately not been aware of the progress, progress must be shown to the
> > group by either sending status or updating the draft.
> > -- Dimitri - will mail to the list.
> > -- Zafar - how does this work relate to the OSPF and ISIS groups?
> > -- DP - we are evaluating what may be missing, after this evaluation we can
> > address protocol-specific issues.
> > -- Zafar - Are you looking at existing mechanisms?
> > -- Dimitri - global applicability is next step, currently looking at what
> > info is exchanged
> >
> > 5. ITU Liaison - Lyndon Ong
> > -- ITU continues to be interested in converging the work on signaling and
> > routing
> > -- ITU thanks CCAMP for its liaisons, and esp. Adrian for attending the
> > last
> > Q14 meeting
> > -- ITU is currently working on ASON management specifications and thanks
> > CCAMP for its liaison of the GMPLS MIB work for its review
> > -- Zafar - can we also have a report of OIF status?  Chairs and LO;
> > there is
> > nothing formal to report at this time that's why it was not scheduled on
> > the
> > agenda.  However, liaisons will be sent to the mailing list for everyone's
> > review, and if something formal is made available, it will be scheduled.
> > -- Lyndon - there is ongoing discussion and communication just sent back to
> > IETF
> > -- Adrian - but not there yet (not available)
> > -- Lyndon - is there a need for a permanent liaison from the OIF at the
> > CCAMP meeting?
> > -- Adrian - if there is something to be discussed it will be considered
> > on a
> > per-request/per-case basis
> > 6. Graceful Shutdown - Zafar Ali (10 min)
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ali-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown-0
> >
> > 0.txt
> > -- Intention is to support a planned shutdown, e.g., for maintenance
> > purposes
> > -- IGP based solution does not cover Inter-AS/Area scenarios
> > -- RSVP-based solution does not convey information to all nodes in the
> > network.
> > -- Both mechanisms must complement each other
> > -- Use existing sub-code of the Path Error message, then perform
> > make-before-break for the LSP. Proposed changes are minor and based on
> > existing framework.
> > -- Would like to propose this ID as a WG document
> > Rahul- is this intra or inter?  inter-domain can use hierarchy of LSPs
> > (nesting/stitching) to achieve this isolation.
> > -- Zafar - though recognize two mechanisms
> > -- Rahul- we should clarify these aspects, as well as inter-domain TE
> > aspects.
> > -- Zafar - can add these aspects in the document
> > -- Richard Rabbat - why is this GMPLS rather than MPLS?
> > Zafar - could be shutting down any type of link.
> > -- Adrian - in terms of problem space it is needed in both cases
> > -- Igor Bryskin - this is a data plane problem followed by rerouting - why
> > don't we use existing mechanisms such as propagating alarms?
> > Zafar - distinguish this from alarms as this is not something that requires
> > an immediate reroute. This is not intended to tackle data plane alarms
> > -- Kireeti - maintenance of the link/node - out-of-service issue is to get
> > traffic out of the link
> > Igor- alarms do not only mean "failure". Could it use alarm severity?
> > -- Kireeti - not an alarm situation.
> > -- Adrian - this is maintenance alarm => requires to scope the work
> > -- Igor - Tools already exist to trigger the same thing, the existing tools
> > are more powerful than this proposed one
> > -- Zafar - point to the capability of the mechanism having the
> > indication to
> > perform make-before-break - also suggest put on the list what you think are
> > alternative mechanisms
> > -- Lou Berger - says if we do this, we should use existing mechanisms such
> > as admin status or alarm (Arthi's suggested one, Igor's alarm admin
> > status).
> > -- Zafar - this mechanism is already in the spec - JP's re-optimization
> > draft
> > -- Lou - other mechanisms are in RFCs. We should decide on mechanisms
> > before
> > we accept as a WG draft.
> > -- Kireeti - step back from the solution, so the point is to write down
> > what
> > is to be achieved (take things out gracefully) -> need first to look at
> > requirements for what want to do.
> > -- Zafar - agreement
> > 7. Interdomain Framework - Adrian (5min)
> > <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-framework
> >
> > -00.txt>
> > -- Minor changes since last time, but published as WG draft
> > -- Applies to both MPLS and GMPLS, but currently limited to simpler
> > functions for initial work
> > -- Realize need more discussion on definition of "domain" e.g. Nested
> > domains, ensure GMPLS included. Will take to list for discussion.
> > -- This covers "simple" functions, what about "advanced" functions such as
> > diverse paths, mapping domain-specific constraints such as DiffServ,
> > pt-to-mpt, etc.?
> > -- Adrian's suggestion is to keep this separate for convenience.
> > -- Rahul - MPLS OAM - building blocks are in place, so it can go in this
> > document; P2MP is considerably less well understood.
> > -- Kireeti - what about GMPLS OAM?
> > -- Dimitri - need to understand what we mean by GMPLS OAM. Suggest phased
> > approach.
> > 8. Interdomain TE Requirements - Tomohiro Otani (5min)
> > <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-otani-ccamp-interas-gmpls-te-01.t
> >
> > xt>
> > -- Joint proposal from NTT/KDDI, can be used for L1VPN, MPLS-TE
> > -- Changes:  added section identifying the following general requirements
> > - EGP extensions for GMPLS
> > - GMPLS Inter-AS signaling, path calculation and recovery
> > - GMPLS interdomain TE management
> > -- Remaining issues:
> > - Investigate added load created by EGP extensions
> > - Investigate L1VPN, use of SRLG for consistency, rechartering impacts
> > - Propose WG document
> > - Zafar - recommended would be a good basis for inter-domain TE framework
> > -- Arthi- support effort, but has too many solutions-related aspects in it.
> > Also suggest separating requirements into signaling, routing and path
> > computation. Need to clarify what is meant by domain - refer to framework
> > document.
> > -- Dimitri - what about reachability information exchange?  Not addressed,
> > but will be an important aspect.
> > -- Adrian- this is solution, not requirements. Suggest to separate
> > requirements and solutions. General approval of the work, but need to
> > remove
> > solutions. Should consider reachability as well as TE aspects.  Restructure
> > as Arthi suggests.
> > -- Otani- agree, will separate
> > -- Kireeti summarizing: separate requirements from solution and structure:
> > signaling from routing (in part. reachability)
> > 9. Summarize Status and plans of PCE BOF (JP Vasseur) (5 minutes)
> > -- Scope issues
> > - No intent to come up with new interdomain routing paradigm
> > - Scoped applicability to a limited number of TE LSPs
> > - Scoped to a "simple" topology of ASes or areas
> > -- Previous BOF - clear requirements from many SPs and common theme of
> > problem - MPLS TE LSP path computation
> > -- Architecture - comments noted global picture needed, but no
> > standardization of architecture.  New revision to be submitted soon in the
> > meantime please comments!
> > -- Note agreed no intention to extend LDP, but possibly other protocols.
> > -- Agreed on proposed charter and milestones, proposal to be sent out early
> > next week.
> > -- Many in favor of new WG, none against - need IESG review and work on
> > charter
> > -- Bijan Jabbari - what scale of LSPs?
> > -- JP - no specific number, not full mesh - does this mean no scalability
> > concerns?
> > -- Adrian - need to make the problem manageable, at least initially.
> > -- Bijan - will WG be open to new architectures?
> > -- Kireeti - take this to the list.
> > -- Peter Toms - support this, lots of requests for this.
> > 10. Inter-Domain RSVP-TE extensions - Arthi Ayyangar (5min)
> > <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ayyangar-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-
> >
> > te-00.txt>
> > -- Changes - include separate section on stitching and required extensions,
> > clarifications for non-packet LSPs.
> > -- Request to make it a WG document - none against, but limited number
> > agreeing (note: not many read the draft)- list.
> > -- Adrian - stitching has wider applicability - should we pull it out
> > into a
> > separate draft?
> > 11. Diverse Inter-region Setup - D'Achille - presented by Adrian (5 min)
> > <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dachille-inter-region-path-setup-
> >
> > 04.txt>
> > -- Adrian not that familiar with this draft. Flags one slide on message
> > exchange where the head end is in the center rather than at the end. Notes
> > several claim, explicitly claim of no new protocol seems questionable as
> > new
> > objects are defined. Need further feedback.
> > Can't take questions as no authors present to discuss - take to list
> > 12. Related to 11.  Protection for Inter-AS tunnels - Decnodder - Cristel
> > Pelsser
> > <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-decnodder-ccamp-interas-protectio
> >
> > n-00.txt>
> > -- Differs from 11, addresses requirements from TEWG draft
> > -- Uses RSVP-TE and FRR
> > -- Adds clarifications on SRLG scope, assumed to correspond to a single AS
> > -- Looking for feedback, how to generalize to GMPLS
> > -- Adrian - need to apply to GMPLS if you want the draft to be in this
> > group.
> > -- Zafar - SRLG issue - need to solve the scooping issue, applies in a
> > number of places.
> > -- Adrian - WG should look at a framework for diverse paths, including PCE.
> > -- Zafar - needs more discussion to understand, and already work in MPLS WG
> > on ABR protection.
> > -- Adrian - authors can continue draft, would also like for CCAMP to
> > evaluate if PCE is appropriate, or something else
> > -- JP - should include the PCE mailing list on this.
> > -- Adrian - need discussion on the ccamp list.
> > 13. Requirements for multi-region - Kohei Shiomoto
> > <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-shiomoto-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-requirem
> >
> > ents-00.txt>
> > -- Region defined based on switching capability - note region is control
> > plane, layer is data plane
> > -- Addresses pre-provisioned FA, triggered FA and no FA cases.  Plain and
> > hybrid type nodes.
> > -- Architecture has generated requirements and solutions drafts
> > -- Virtual network topology, application example
> > -- Propose as WG document.
> > -- Adrian - handling regions are in scope of CCAMP.
> > -- Adrian - asks Dimitri to immediately present the extensions then we will
> > take questions
> > <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-shiomoto-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-extensio
> >
> > ns-00.txt>
> > -- TE metric inheritance - how to inherit or map metrics
> > -- How is recovery abstracted for an FA - e.g., end2end vs. span protected?
> > -- Reconvergence of VNT
> > -- Handling multiple switching and adaptation capabilities
> > -- Zafar - is this a good idea from TE point of view - dynamic FA
> > creation -
> > need applicability statement - potential bandwidth segmentation issues -
> > may
> > lose aggregation that you would normally get at the boundary - could add
> > oscillation.  If still considered a good idea, should it be triggered by
> > signaling or some other mechanism?  Document needs to list concerns.
> > -- Arthi - some parts of requirements still not clear - what is needed
> > outside of the LSP hierarchy draft?  Need to clarify what is missing from
> > the existing, and reference where it's covered by existing documents.
> > Don't
> > want to reinvent terminology.  Regarding virtual FA setup can be
> > pre-provisioned or on demand - hierarchy draft already says this, should
> > not
> > be in the requirements document but only in the solutions document.
> > Regarding protection - more work needs to be done in the requirements.
> > -- Igor - region, layer, hierarchy level are treated interchangeably in the
> > draft, confusing.  Regarding stitching, this is a very general capability
> > and should be in LSP hierarchy instead. Kireeti - thinks this should have a
> > separate document.
> > -- Adrian - more clarification would be good on layer/region
> > -- Jonathan Sadler - good stuff in general, agree with the goal.
> > Concern is
> > that IETF framework is not well aligned to ITU concept of layered network
> > (G.805).  It would be good to take into account the ITU framework.  Work on
> > extensions is premature at this time.
> > -- Deborah Brungard - authors intended to handle multiple layers as in ITU
> > (e.g. G.805) - limited to single domain for now, should be addressed to
> > GMPLS RFCs. Not intended to discuss data plane concepts. Request for more
> > specific comments.
> >
> > 14. MPLS-to-GMPLS Migration - Kohei Shiomoto
> > <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-oki-ccamp-gmpls-ip-interworking-0
> >
> > 4.txt>
> > -- Evolution from legacy MPLS to GMPLS -
> > -- Differences: architecture (C/D separation, bidirectionality, P&R);
> > routing (opaque LSA); signaling (new objects, messages)
> > -- Propose WG document
> > -- Kireeti - question on whether this is in scope - address on charter
> > -- Zafar - multi-layer comments also apply here.
> > -- Richard Rabbat - supports the work, suggests looking at odd numbers
> > rather than even.
> > -- Ping Pan - how does this differ from the overlay model?
> > -- Kireeti - different, take this to the list.
> > 15. L1 VPN - Tomonori Takeda (10 Min)
> > <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-takeda-l1vpn-framework-02.txt>
> > <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-takeda-l1vpn-applicability-01.txt
> >
> >
> >>
> > <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ouldbrahim-ppvpn-gvpn-bgpgmpls-05
> >
> > .txt>
> > <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-overlay-05.txt>
> > -- Mailing list - www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l1vpn
> > -- Two drafts applicable, ouldbrahim and overlay - guidelines for
> > enhancement, deployment scenaros - added terminology refinement, security
> > considerations, service models
> > -- Further comments solicited, planning further liaison to SG13.
> > -- Applicability draft examines existing GMPLS protocols for L1 VPN
> > services. Has added Deborah as co-author.
> > -- Concept - set up FA LSP between PEs, use stitching to connect this to
> > CEs.
> > -- Propose to adopt as CCAMP charter item.
> > -- Kireeti - supports applicability draft.  Liaison with ITU is very
> > important - we need to be responsive.  We will discuss this item as part of
> > the extension of the CCAMP charter
> > 16. Signaling for L2 LSPs - Dimitri Papadimitriou (10 minutes)
> > <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-gmpls-l2sc-ls
> >
> > p-03.txt>
> > -- ATM, FR, ETH, etc.  Defines label request processing, label semantics,
> > added security section.
> > -- Security - threats analysis, attacks on the data plane, L2 LSP
> > signaling,
> > attacks on control plane
> > -- Ask for WG draft, no plan to respin
> > -- Dave Allan - Question on Ethernet VLAN tag swapping - not defined in
> > IEEE.
> > -- Dimitri- intended to cover GMPLS scope, not data plane.  Should not
> > assume tag is per port unique.
> > -- Don Fedyk - is this P2P?
> > -- Dimitri - Yes (as starting point).
> > -- Kireeti - ok, we have a fair consensus, so I would say it's a rough
> > consensus point. We will take this to the list, Dave and Dimitri to work
> > out
> > VLAN issue.
> > -- Note that an MPLS group draft on L2 has come up
> > 17. Mesh Carrier Survey - Richard Rabbat (5 min)
> > <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rabbat-ccamp-carrier-survey-01.tx
> >
> > t>
> > -- Initially 7 carriers polled, open to others
> > -- Also surveys GMPLS control plane deployment
> > -- 1 has deployed, 3 within 2-3 years, 3 with no current plans
> > -- Concerns with stability, signaling storms
> > -- Asking for feedback, new carrier input
> > -- Richard - review slides, recommend for CCAMP WG to begin work on shared
> > mesh restoration performance
> > 18. Milestone and Charter discussion - Kireeti
> > -- Current activities winding down, esp. P&R, ASON
> > -- Others underway, esp. multi-domain
> > -- New: migration, VPNs, control plane resilience, addressing,
> > implementation experience, GTTP (?)
> > -- Migration
> > - GMPLS supersets MPLS, but some objects are different - label request,
> > label, upstream label
> > - Need BCP on smooth migration, what issues may occur
> > -- L1 VPN
> > - Should IETF do this?  Should it be in CCAMP?  Tied to UNI and Interdomain
> > signaling
> > -- Control plane resilience - includes graceful restart but also more
> > -- Addressing - transport networks use different kinds of addresses - need
> > decoder ring for mapping transport network address types to IP addresses -
> > Kireeti considers this useful
> > -- Interop results - note that addressing pops up there as well.  BCPs
> > would
> > be helpful.
> > -- Send out request for new work items, replies due Friday 11/19.
> > -- Send out checks for consensus on each item, replies due Friday 12/3
> > -- Send resulting list to A-Ds, trimmed if necessary, add appropriate
> > milestones
> > -- Consensus is a requirement but not a guarantee.
> > -- Lou - how about dropping something from the existing charter -
> > -- Kireeti - maybe GTTP - Lou - should note on the list also things that
> > may
> > be dropped if no support.
> > -- Alex - about L1 VPNs - is this research work, or practical?  Need at
> > least one implementation - is anyone implementing this within a year or
> > two?
> > -- Dimitri - Solutions exist provided by vendors today, but no common
> > framework.  Timeframe for implementation is 18-24 months.
> > -- Alex reminds the group of the need for running code.
> > -- Adrian - what about informational draft on how to use existing functions
> > to do the service?  Is there any interest from the research groups or the
> > real carrier deployment groups?
> > -- Tomonori Takeda - NTT has interest, but not sure of protocols.
> > Timeframe
> > - cannot say.  Testing is done.
> > -- Yakov Rekhter- vendors cannot disclose future product plans...
> > -- Deborah Brungard - carriers also cannot disclose plans, will see
> > interest
> > by number of co-authors.
> > -- Kireeti - have had carriers ask for this technology.  We don't have all
> > the pieces, but have implemented many of them, and as a vendor would
> > like to
> > see a solution on how to do. Answer to Alex is yes.
> > -- Richard Rabbat - could add this to his survey.
> > -- Kireeti supports this.
> > MEETING IS ADJOURNED.
> >
> >
> > .
> >
>
>
>
>