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

hi adrian:

> 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?

yes - it was

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

these are the following:

1. clarify the node-id based Hellos usage when there is more than one 
link between a pair of node and the GMPLS PSC vs MPLS applicability - 
this has been performed by adding the following paragraph:

"  Even in the case of packet switching capable end-points, when link
    failure detection is performed by some means other than RSVP Hello
    messages (e.g., [BFD]), the use of Node-ID based Hello sessions is
    also optimal for detection of signaling adjacency failures for GMPLS-
    /RSVP-TE when there is more than one link between a pair of nodes. "

2. in an IPv6 network, provide "Node ID" details

"  For IPv6, the Node-ID refers to the Router_IPv6_Address for OSPFv3
    [OSPFv3-TE] and the IPv6 TE Router_ID for IS-IS [IS-ISv6-TE]. This
    section formalizes a procedure for establishing Node-ID based Hello
    sessions."

3. justify the compatibility statement of section 4:

"  The procedure presented in this document is backward compatible with
    both [RFC3209] and [RFC3473].

    Per [RFC 3209], the Hello mechanism is intended for use between
    immediate neighbors and Hello messages are by default sent between
    direct RSVP neighbors. This document does not modify this behavior as
    it uses as "local node_id" the IPv4/IPv6 source address of the
    sending node and as "remote node_id" the IPv4/IPv6 destination
    address of the neighbor node. TTL/Hop Limit setting and processing
    are also left unchanged.

    Moreover, this document does not modify the use of Hello Processing
    for State Recovery as defined in Section 9.3 of [RFC 3473] (including
    definition and processing of the RESTART_CAP object). "

4. justify *why* no new security issues are introduced (as part of the 
section 5)

"  As this document does not modify or extend the RSVP Hello messages
    exchange between immediate RSVP neighbors, it does not introduce new
    security considerations.

    The security considerations pertaining to the original [RFC3209]
    remain relevant. RSVP message security is described in [RFC2747] and
    provides Hello message integrity and authentication of the Node-ID
    ownership."

5. a bunch of editorial issues

- IPR boilerplate
- remove the "Routing Area ID Summary"
- remove Table of Contents
- spurious double space
- spurious question mark
- consistency between "Hello" vs "hello" and "node-id" vs "node id"
- formatting of the references

thanks,
- dimitri.

> Thanks, Adrian ----- Original Message ----- From: "dimitri
> papadimitriou" <dpapadimitriou@psg.com> To: "Adrian Farrel"
> <olddog@clara.co.uk> Cc: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> 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 tove.madsen@acreo.se === 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> .
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 