Re: Draft minutes from Seoul

[[e-mail]]

adrian, some hints inline:

Adrian Farrel wrote:
> 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 <[e-mail]> Adrian Farrel
> <[e-mail]>
> 
> 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.

if the draft (l1vpn framework) provided in the liaison could
include a summarization (as conclusion) on the expected GMPLS
work for the CCAMP WG, this would clarify the intent of the
liaison in term of expected effort for the CCAMP WG

> 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).

-> There is a deadline on G.7713 (April 2004), isn't there a
    similar deadline on G.7713.2 (since this is the document
    to which convergence is expected) ?

> 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.

-> also the discussion slides proposed to defer to the GROW
    WG (cfr. RIFT WG item) concerning the (external) non-IP
    reachability issue since much broader than just CCAMP
    GMPLS/ASON context

> 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.

-> Lyndon said he want to capture the requirement on "non-IP
    reachability" - 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.

-> He would like feedback on whether or not the current draft
    deals correctly with the session attribute object that
    encodes the long call_id (alternatives were also proposed)

> His objective at this point is to try to have last call on this

-> His objective at this point is to try to have a document
    ready for last call for the next IETF 60 meeting in San
    Diego

> 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.

-> replace "his conclusions" by "DT conclusions" and "as to what
    there is agreement on what's missing from GMPLS (delta) and
    what are the areas on which there is no agreement on what's
    missing from GMPLS)"

> 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

-> in addition, he questioned about the relevance of using the
    LSP_Attributes to signal the signaling method for the intra-
    area/-AS provisioning of the LSP

> and made some suggestions for clarification of the draft.

-> in particular, he proposed to not include protocol procedures
    within examples/scenarios that makes the document difficult
    to read

> 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.

-> 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 why this
    approach is so focused on optimization (since it can't be
    achieved if this condition is not met)

-> part of the Vishal's response was that in such case some
    selection needs to be performed at each stage

[note: that the issue is related to the fact that when the number
of ABRs is increasing, selection performed at the N-1 stage is
influecing the computation at the N (current) 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.
> 
> === 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.

-> Proposal was made to include in the charter the complete
    set of GMPLS mechanisms for integrated control planes and
    not only multi-layer recovery (as it stands today)

> 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.
> 
> 

-- 
Papadimitriou Dimitri
E-mail : [e-mail]
E-mail : [e-mail]
Webpage: http://psg.com/~dpapadimitriou/
Address: Fr. Wellesplein 1, B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium
Phone  : [phone]