CCAMP minutes

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

Folks,

The following are proposed minutes from our Yokohama meeting. Please send
additions/corrections to the list.

                                               Ron

>
> Agenda: http://www.ietf.org/ietf/02jul/ccamp.txt
>
> Minute takers were volunteered (Josh Broch and Eric Gray)
>
> Document Status - Kireeti Kompella
>
> WG documents: g709, lmp-wdm and oli-reqts are candidates for WG last
> call.  A
> few people think that g-709, lmp-wdm and oli-reqts are ready, but there
> was no
> strong consensus so take to the list.
>
> There is some consensus that lmp-04 is ready for WG last call (confirm
> on the
> list.  Architecture is informational so it will go to IETF last call.
> Routing
> and ospf-gmpls-extensions-07 have been to last call - are they ready to
> go to
> IETF last call?  The sdhsonet draft is informational and there were no
> strong
> objections to its going to IETF last call.
>
> The carter update is way overdue.  Items may be added -
> protection/restoration,
> crankback and multi-area operations.  There were some questions about
> other
> items that have been brought up previously, but Kireeti pointed out that
> we
> work by rough consensus and this may exclude some things that a few
> people are
> interetsed in.
>
> Wesam Alanqar presented a report of activities of ITU SG-15 including
> some FYI
> information on Automatic discovery (Q14/15).  Kireeti had some comments
> on the
> presentation: the IETF does not recognize the OIF UNI and the OIF is not
> a
> standards body.
>
> Stephen Trowbridge answered that there is a formal liaison relationship
> between the OIF
> and the ITU.
>
> Dimitri Papadimitriou presented detailed status information on several
> drafts
> (see Agenda).  Architecture completed last call 27 June.  Bert Wijnen
> suggested
> that the problems with the Author list should be resolved.  IS-IS and
> OSPF
> extensions for g-709 network control - framework is an ITU action item;
> the
> status of other documents is as Kireeti stated.
>
> Kireeti had one comment - IS-IS work is currently being done in the
> IS-IS
> group while the OSPF work is being done in the CCAMP working group.
>
> Dimitri continued with discussion of the signaling draft and solicited
> comments
> on it. The he discussed the SONET/SDH work in progress.
>
> Kireeti asked if Dimitri had discussed this work with people from the
> ITU.
> Dimitri said that they have.
>
> Alex Zinnin asked about the frequency of updates and asked for
> considerations
> about the stability of the protocols.  Dimitri briefly talked about some
> of
> the considerations that are already included.  Alex asked for a specific
>
> section and Dimitri agreed to add this.
>
> Dimitri continued with recovery terminology, analysis and functional
> specification
> drafts.  The functional specification did not make the dead-line for
> submission
> but will be available after the meeting.  They will start on signaling
> and keep
> the documents consistent. They expect to move these documents as a
> block.
>
> Kireeti stated that the documents have to be accepted as WG work on an
> individual
> basis.  The WG members are free to contribute to the work - there is
> nothing
> special about the design team working on all of these drafts.
>
> Continuing with recovery analysis - the draft talks about classification
> and
> applicability of recovery mechanisms.  Dimitri asked if this should be a
> work
> group item.  Kireeti said this would have to be taken to the list.
>
> Dimitri asked if he could present the functional specification. This was
> not
> allowed as the draft was not available on time.
>
> Dimitri next presented status on the final drafts on the agenda
> (lmp-ls).
> Again he asked for consensus to include these as WG drafts and solicited
>
> technical feedback.
>
> Osama Aboul-Magd stated that new uses of SONET/SDH overhead should be
> handled
> via the ITU.  Dimitri said that they are not proposing new usages.
>
> Emir Ermilin - ???
>
> Osama Aboul-Magd presented status on his draft on ASON extensions to
> CR-LDP.
> He asked if the WG would accept this as a WG draft.
>
> Kireeti pointed out that there is a meta discussion on the issue of
> progressing
> both CR-LDP and RSVP-TE in the MPLS working group tomorrow and suggested
> that
> the discussion should be taken to the mailing list after that has been
> addressed.
>
> Chen-Ying Lee presented status information on her draft
> (rsvp-te-exclude-route)
> and asked if there is interest in this work in the working group and
> whether or
> not this should become a WG draft.
>
> Ron suggested waiting to see how the charter updates and some other work
>
> progresses before attempting to see if this fits into the charter and is
>
> relevat to the working group.
>
> ??? Vasseur presented status on his drafts and suggested a possible
> evolution
> of the draft.
>
> Satoru Matsoshima presented a service provider perspective on this work.
>
> ??? Vasseur asked if the WG will accept this work as WG drafts.
>
> Ron asked how this work would fit into the current charter.
>
> Bert Wijnen talked about the fact that these presentations are going
> into a
> lot of material not appropriate in the meeting context.  He asked that
> each
> presenter who is proposing new work must include information about how
> the
> work fits into the "common" control and measurement plane context.
>
> Other comments were made and Kireeti asked that the discussion be taken
> to
> the mailing list.
>
> ??? presented the next set of drafts and asked to add transport plane
> sub-network to the WG charter.
>
> Tomiko Yakyu presented his proposals for extensions to routing for
> advertising sharable bandwidth.  He asked if this work is interesting
> to the working group.
>
> Dimitri Papadimitriou asked for the draft to include more information on
>
> how to make this work part of other efforts.
>
> Ron suggested taking the discussion off-line.
>
> Richu Rabbat presented work on fault notification.  He pointed out that
> this item should fit within the charter and asked to have the working
> group accept the draft.
>
> Ron aksed for a show of hands for people who have had a chance to read
> the draft and suggested that - based on the small number of people who
> had read it - that this should be taken up on the list.
>
> Kireeti suggested that there should be some work on requirements before
> going further on this effort.
>
> Dimitri Papadimitriou discussed work on ASON extensions to RSVP-TE. He
> asked if the WG believes this to be valuable work and should eventually
> be put forward to the ITU.
>
> Kireeti talked about the need to work out the relationship with the ITU
> on these issues.
>
> Choy asked why the work does nt include call/connection information.
>
> Kireeti said that the functional specification should first capture the
> solution independent requirements.
>
> Stephen Trowbridge asked what further information the IETF requires.
>
> Dimitri and Kireeti answered the question in detail.
>
> Dimitri Papadimitriou presented work on Applicability of LMP failure
> correlation, etc. in LMP-WDM and asked if there is interest in doing
> more work in this area.
>
> Ron asked to find out if anyone had read the document.  A very small
> number of people had and Ron suggested trying to generate interest in
> the work on the mailing list.
>
> Dimitri continued with his presentation on LSP bandwidth modification
> (LBM) and asked if the working group is ready to accept the draft as
> a WG document.
>
> Based on the small number of readers of the draft, Ron suggested taking
> the discussion to the mailing list.
>
> Kohei Shiomoto talked briefly about some thinking they have done on
> multi area TE issues.  He said that there is no mechanism to advertise
> traffic demand over TE links.  He suggests that traffic measurement
> should be advertised using FA-LSP and we should start discussion on
> multi-layer path network control.
>
> Dimitri said that a year ago, we punted on multi-area issues and he
> would like to know if there is now interest in doing this.
>
> Eiji Oki presented some ideas and issues on using upstream allocation
> of labels and bi-directional signaling.  He asked to have this work
> accepted by the WG.
>
> Ron asked that this discussion be taken to the list.
>
> Ryu Kim presented his work on Network State Information Database.  He
> said that NSID is a requirement for optical networks.
>
> Ron recommended taking this work to the mailing list.
>
> Emmanuel Vigoureux presented his work on architectural considerations
> for
> Hybrid photonic networks (HPN).  He asked that this be considered as a
> core work for the WG.
>
> Ron asked how this fits into the charter and how much interest there is.
>
> A fair number of people had read the draft.
>
> Dimitri pointed out that this architectural perspective is useful as it
> deals with  vertical control plane issues whereas the perspective in all
>
> other work is horizontal (focused on common aspects).
>
> Ron then asked that the discussion be carried forward to the mailing
> list.
>
> Ron then pointed out that there were 5 minutes remaining in the WG slot
> and aksed for one of the people who had been unable to get a slot to
> give their presentation.
>
> Wataru Imajuku presented an overview of his draft on multilayer routing
> using multilayer switch capable LSRs.
>
> Dimitri suggested integrating the abstratced requirements associated
> with
> this work into other drafts.
>
>
>