Re: Draft agenda for San Diego

[ricciato <[e-mail]>]

Hi Adrian,

I think that it would be convenient for the WG to include a slot for 
discussion (not presentation) of the draft on diverse path requirements 
routing
(namely: draft-dachille-diverse-inter-region-path-setup-00.txt ).

In the current  version of the agenda for San Diego I do not see any 
reference to that, despite in the Seoul meeting it was acknowledged to 
be a very important work.
That time it was state that it should be discussed in the list and 
revised. I´m attaching an extract from the Seoul minutes at the end of 
this mail, for reference.
Well, both an _intensive_ discussion and a careful revision have been 
carried on for over 2  months now.
The discussion was fruitful indeed, and in the revision we have 
addressed _all_ the comments issued so far. The feedback were generally 
very positive.
Therefore, considered the very high level of interest that has been 
demonstrated for this topic, I do not see any reson for not having the 
chance to discuss the changes introduced in the revised version in San 
Diego in order to advance it in the WG.

I remark that the draft directly addresses a significant number of 
charter items:

-- Functional specification of extensions for routing (OSPF, ISIS) and 
signalling (RSVP-TE) required for path establishment.
-- Define signaling and routing mechanisms to make possible the creation 
of paths that span multiple IGP areas, multiple ASes, and multiple
providers, including techniques for crankback
-- Specify signalling mechanisms for path protection, diverse routing 
and fast path restoration.




Best regards
Fabio Ricciato



Adrian Farrel wrote:

>Hi,
>
>Here is an early draft agenda for CCAMP in San Diego.
>
>As usual there is a high volume of drafts that people want to 'present'. Of necessity,
>therefore, some of you must be disappointed. The usual comments apply:
>
>- The main place for presentation of your draft is the mailing list
>- Discussion of your draft needs to be on the mailing list
>  (discussions at the meetings don't carry much weight)
>
>In order to make sure that drafts that do not get explicit slots on the agenda are not
>forgotten, the chairs will attempt to mention some of the key ones, give status, and
>encourage debate on the mailing list.
>
>(The larger amounts of time dedicated to inter-domain is in anticipation of a healthy
>degree of debate.)
>
>Thanks,
>Adrian
>
>===
>
>CCAMP 60 - San Diego - Draft Agenda
>[running total 150 / 150]
>
>Group Admin (Chairs)
>  Admin and agenda bash (5 mins)
>  Status of WG and drafts (5 mins)
>        http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-vasseur-ccamp-te-router-info-00.txt
>        http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-vasseur-isis-te-caps-00.txt
>        http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-vasseur-ospf-te-caps-00.txt
>        http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-vasseur-ccamp-loose-path-reopt-02.txt
>        http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec-00.txt
>        http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-crankback-02.txt
>        http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-exclude-route-02.txt
>        http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-tc-mib-05.txt
>        http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-lsr-mib-05.txt
>        http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-te-mib-05.txt
>        http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-tunproto-00.txt
>
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dimitri-ccamp-gmpls-rsvp-te-bundled-links-00.txt
>        http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-oki-ccamp-gmpls-ip-interworking-03.txt
>
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-shiomoto-ccamp-misconnection-analysis-00.txt
>        http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rabbat-ccamp-carrier-survey-00.txt
>
>  Milestones and objectives (5 mins)
>
>ASON Requirements and Solutions
>  ASON Signaling and Routing Requirements and other cooked drafts (Adrian) (2 mins)
>    http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-reqts-06.txt
>    http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-reqts-04.txt
>    http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-berger-gmpls-egress-control-02.txt
>
>  ASON Signaling Solutions (Dimitri Papadimitriou) (5 mins)
>    http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-rsvp-te-ason-01.txt
>
>  ASON Routing Solutions Design Team status (Dimitri Papadimitriou) (10 mins)
>    - charter & team
>    - plans
>    - drafts
>
>  A Transport Network View of LMP (Don Fedyk) (5 minutes)
>    http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-aboulmagd-ccamp-transport-lmp-02.txt
>    - why this draft?
>    - adopt as WG draft?
>
>  SG15 liaison (Wesam Alanqar 5 mins)
>
>Protection and Restoration
>  Drafts in AD review (Adrian) (2 mins)
>    http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-analysis-02.txt
>    http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-functional-01.txt
>    http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-terminology-03.txt
>
>  End-to-end recovery (Dimitri Papadimitriou) (5 mins)
>
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lang-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-e2e-signaling-02.txt
>    - ready for last call?
>
>  Segment Recovery (Lou Berger) (5 mins)
>    http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-segment-recovery-00.txt
>    - ready for last call?
>
>Hello Protocol and Graceful Restart
>  Graceful restart (Lou Berger) (10 minutes)
>    http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-aruns-ccamp-rsvp-restart-ext-01.txt
>    - good ideas?
>    - adopt as WG draft?
>  Node-id-based Hello (Zafar Ali) (5 minutes)
>    http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-node-id-based-hello-00.txt
>    - implementation status
>    - ready for last call
>  Graceful restart (Zafar Ali / Anca Zamfir) (5 minutes)
>    http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ali-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown-00.txt
>    - good ideas?
>    - adopt as WG draft?
>
>Inter-Area/AS
>  Strategy (Kireeti) (10 minutes)
>  - definitions and overview
>  - simple requirements first
>  - protection and other diverse path requirements later
>  - PCE BOF
>
>  Inter-domain Framework (Adrian) (15 minutes)
>    http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-farrel-ccamp-inter-domain-framework-01.txt
>    - generality of "domain"
>    - separation of routing, path computation and signaling
>    - no attention to diverse paths at this stage
>    - WG adopt?
>
>  Inter-domain RSVP-TE (Arthi Ayyangar) (15 minutes)
>    http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ayyangar-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te-00.txt
>    - Purpose of draft?
>    - Main issues
>    - WG adopt?
>
>  Inter-domain TE LSP path computation methods (JP Vasseur) (15 minutes)
>    http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-vasseur-ccamp-inter-domain-path-comp-00.txt
>    - Purpose of draft?
>    - Main issues
>    - Overlap with PCE BOF?
>    - WG adopt?
>
>  GMPLS Inter-AS requirements (Tomohiro Otani) (10 minutes)
>    http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-otani-ccamp-interas-gmpls-te-00.txt
>    - Why a separate draft?
>    - What are the main features?
>
>Summary of other work
>  Layer 2 GMPLS (Dimitri Papadimitriou) (5 mins)
>    http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-gmpls-l2sc-lsp-02.txt
>    - what's it about?
>    - adopt as WG draft?
>
>  Layer 1 VPNs (Tomonori Takeda) (5 mins)
>  - status and plans
>    - still progressing "under the care of CCAMP"
>    - mailing list
>    http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-takeda-l1vpn-framework-01.txt
>    http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-takeda-l1vpn-applicability-00.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-04.txt
>  
>


Here is the extract from the minutes:

>********************
>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.
>
>  He emphasized that this is really a generic mechanism for
>  diverse path computation, and protection is one
>  application of it, so the authors would respin with a new
>  name and emphasis to reflect this."
>
>  Zafar Ali asked how this would work if there is a failure
>  at the time during which the backup path is being setup.
>
>    Vishal replied that the solutions to this were, so far,
>    not discussed in the draft, but that there are several
>    options.
>
>    He then outlined some of the options. E.g. either
>    default in such a case to a sequential computation, and
>    use XRO to exclude the link/node where backup path setup
>    failed, and retry the backup (and optimize both primary
>    and secondary later using the techniques in the draft).
>    Or, set up the primary and the backup again, using the
>    techniques described in the draft.
>
>    Vishal said they would be happy to add some discussion
>    in the document, and welcomed feedback on the list.
>
>  Zafar asked how this work relates to PCS/PCE work.
>
>    Vishal replied that it could actually be made use of by
>    the PCS/PCE approach, and could be viewed as
>    complementary.
>
>  Kireeti asked that further discussion be taken to the
>  list.
>
>  Vishal said he welcomed further feedback on the document.
>
>  Dimitri asked why, knowing that the proposed approach
>  works as expected in the intra-domain case when the
>  number of ABRs (where computation can be executed at each
>  stage) does not increase, this approach is so focused on
>  optimization (since it can't be achieved if this
>  condition is not met).
>
>    Vishal clarified that the focus of the work is to
>    propose a generic mechanism to facilitate diverse path
>    setup by communicating alternate path info, with
>    optimization a desired goal (for reasons explained in
>    the document).
>
>    Vishal added that given the network model (where border
>    nodes are not assumed to have visibility in areas other
>    than their own), the scheme was not trying to be
>    globally optimal.
>
>    Vishal explained that in such cases some selection needs
>    to be performed at each stage.
>
>  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.
>
>  Kireeti concluded by saying that path protection and
>  inter-area are both in the charter, but that this document
>  could only be considered for a WG document after there was
>  discussion about the document on the list.
>
>*******************
>

>
>
>  
>