IETF 56 CCAMP Minutes
Ron Bonica <Ronald.P.Bonica@wcom.com> Mon, 24 March 2003 02:08 UTC
Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com
Delivery-date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 18:12:39 -0800
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 21:08:30 -0500
From: Ron Bonica <Ronald.P.Bonica@wcom.com>
Subject: IETF 56 CCAMP Minutes
To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Message-id: <DKEJJCOCJMHEFFNMLKMPCEGHIPAA.Ronald.P.Bonica@wcom.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Folks, Attached are IETF 56 CCAMP minutes. Thanks to Markus Jork for taking notes. If there are no objections posted to the list by next week, I will submit the minutes as recorded by Markus. ============================================ Kireeti: WG status ------------------ Short overview on status of WG documents as listed on web page. Questions: - framework for sonet/sdh control draft ready for LC? -> unclear - LMP MIB to LC? Some in room think it's ready (nobody disagrees) -> take to mailing list - non-standard sonet/sdh extensions? -> no interest in room Bert Wijnen: There is still no document describing what exactly is signaled. If that is not provided, this draft should go to wastebin. Wesam Alanqar: ITU liaison report --------------------------------- ITU-T SG15 update to ccamp. This presentation has also been sent to the mailing list. 3 liaison statements exist: ason routing, discovery, restoration/re-routing. IETF routing experts are invited to come to next ITU meeting. Dimitri Papadimitriou: Ext. in support of end-to-end GMPLS-based recovery ------------------------------------------------------------------------- draft-lang-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-e2e-signaling-00 After 1 year of work: terminology starts to be widely adopted, analysis i-d still too largely scoped. Still needs to be covered: bulk lsp recovery, reversion (switch back) Next steps: next report April 03, func spec ready for LC protocol spec expected to be ready in July Should the terminology doc become PS? Peter Czezowski: recovery requirements, fault notification protocol and LMP ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Presenting 3 drafts and changes to them: - draft-czezowski-optical-recovery-reqs-01.txt - draft-rabbat-fault-notification-protocol-02.txt - draft-soumiya-lmp-fault-notification-ext-00.txt The first 2 drafts believed to be ready. There is running code for the third draft, but is there any interest? Comments are requested from mailing list. George: Changing pt-to-pt protocol to a flooding protocol is more than just adding a message. It results in a different implementation model for LMP. Kireeti: Don't start by modfying LMP, first look into problem and requirements. Need mailing list discussion whether LMP is right. Alex: It took several net meltdowns to learn how to do flooding right. Dimitri: draft-lang-ccamp-lmp-bootstrap-03 ------------------------------------------ Changes: modified J0/J1/J2-16 string to fit within 80 bits, added layer adjacency discovery Next steps: believes all technical issues solved, accept as wg doc? Is this a worthwhile LMP extension (apart from questions about format details)? Kireeti: needs discussion on list Jonathan(?): mechanism worthwhile, encoding still has problems Dimitri: suggest to create document with common bootstrap mechanism, then sonet/sdh specific doc Jonathan Lang: is feature desired by community? find out before splitting docs and put more work in it Question to room: ~7 think it's useful, nobody against -> take to list George: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-overlay-01 ----------------------------------------- Question to room: "ready for WG LC?": ~20 yes, 0 no -> check consensus on list Dimitri: technology specific routing extensions to GMPLS routing ---------------------------------------------------------------- draft-mannie-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-{ospf,isis} Changes: discussion concerning bandwidth encoding, section on scalability and backward compatibility consideration. Falls within Sonet/SDH basket. Some assertions have been made on list, addressed one-by-one in the presentation. Jonathan(?): need discussion on list instead of rhetorical questions here A layering discussion ensued. Kireeti: need layer relationship document Poll of the room: ~15 think it's a useful idea, ~5 against making it wg doc Kireeti: reasonable support, take to list Adrian Farell: GMPLS MIBs ------------------------- 3 drafts became WG drafts in June 02, nothing happened since. Waiting for MPLS MIBS to go to LC before republishing GMPLS MIBs. Plan: wait for MPLS MIBs republication and LC quick editorial respin to bring in line (~4 weeks after MPLS MIBs) content additions, republish before Vienna chairs would like LC in August (but need WG feedback) Adrian: draft-lee-ccamp-rsvp-te-exclude-route-01 ------------------------------------------------ Why in gmpls? think is ccmap charter item, increasing interest (inter-AS/area), is mpls extension but is generalized and should be part of GMPLS Why needed? needed where path computation is not only in one place Changes: identification of new work items Actions: got useful feedback solicit input from providers look for convergence with JP's draft WG item? George: should talk about it in ??? meeting Questions to room: ~15 have read the draft ~20 find it useful ~30 think it should become wg doc in some wg 0 find it not ready Osama Aboul-Magd: a transport view to LMP ----------------------------------------- draft-aboulmagd-ccamp-transport-lmp-00.txt Kireeti: What does control plane discovery mean? Is LMP + LMP bootstrap close enough to what this draft does? Very useful spec, provides "language translation". Marten: progress this draft before LMP bootstrap draft Ron Bonica: generic tunnel tracing ---------------------------------- Requirements doc is stable, WG LC complete. Time to work on solution, IANA has assigned UDP port, new context object added. Solicit feedback from implementers. Adopt as ccamp work item? Room poll: ~10 have read the draft -> need to take to list Ron (for Loa): MPLS and GMPLS change process -------------------------------------------- Status: lots of lively discussion, topics: - is this merely a reaffirmation of IETF process? - what is the role of a liaison? - when all approvals are not obtained? Is there any alternative to the dust bin? Don Fedyk: need better understanding, common model/language Monique Morrow(?): ITU/IETF need to work together Jerry Ash: document describing liaisons? Kireeti: there already is such as doc (may be insufficient), separate from this Bert: liaison process is wider issue (not specific to this WG) Marten: draft fine for IP applications, how about non-IP apps? How can get those requirements recognized in IETF? Ron: requirements must be stated clearly to be understood by IETF WG Kireeti: Draft documents how ietf process works. The process may need a dust bin for bad ideas and another bin for "not in IETF scope, but not really broken". It is not addressed yet how to handle stuff the IETF doesn't like. Alex: Need interest by IETF community to make things happen, same thing applicable to anyone coming to IETF. People need to be convinced. Bert: subip area initially had problem with too many drafts, was fixed by requiring problem statements Marten: Process is very mature dealing with submissions by individuals, but not from other organizations. I-Ds not suited to deal with peer standardization organization. ITU can't do ascii diagrams or read through mailing list to gather IETF opinion. Need a way to apply IETF protocols to non-IETF problem. Kireeti: GMPLS work did step out of traditional ietf scope George: coopeation would work a lot better if clear requirements would be communicated instead of sending in solutions (even applies within IETF) Sharam Davari: another standardization organization should not have same weight as an individual submission Ron: I-D should be evaluated on its merit, author irrelevant Kireeti: ccamp charter update ----------------------------- - not done by WG consensus - proposed by chairs to AD, AD takes it to IESG/IAB Alex: correction: WG consensus *is* required but is not enough under consideration: - inter-area signaling and routing of generalized paths - inter-as on hold until tewg produces requirements - explicitely put tunnel tracing in charter - routing extensions for Sonet/SDH - signaling for G.709 signaling - further LMP extensions - optical vpn *not* in charter milestones: - GMPLS MIB to WG LC in Aug 03 - protection/restoration functional spec and protocol changes to WG LC by Apr and Jul 03 (respectively) - tunnel tracing protocol to WG LC by Sep 03 - set milestones for inter-area path setup when ratified as charter changes need active discussion on list JP: combination of inter-area and inter-as is a good idea Kireeti: it is great if a common solution is available, but that is not reason enough to put inter-as on charter Marco: O-VPN started in ITU-T, on ppvpn charter, good chance for cooperation Kireeti: ccamp should keep an eye on solution =========================================== Ronald P. Bonica Ph: 703 886 1681 vBNS Engineering page: 1 888 268 8021 Ashburn, Va. =========================================== "We are not on Earth to guard a museum, but to cultivate a flourishing garden of life." -- Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli
- Re: IETF 56 CCAMP Minutes Dimitri.Papadimitriou
- RE: IETF 56 CCAMP Minutes Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS
- Re: IETF 56 CCAMP Minutes Emmanuel.Dotaro
- Re: IETF 56 CCAMP Minutes Dimitri.Papadimitriou
- IETF 56 CCAMP Minutes Ron Bonica