[GSMP] GSMP WG Status
Kenneth Sundell <ksundell@nortelnetworks.com> Sun, 09 November 2003 17:02 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA03752 for <gsmp-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Sun, 9 Nov 2003 12:02:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AIsx1-0002PJ-Gq for gsmp-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 09 Nov 2003 12:02:12 -0500
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hA9H2Btk009249 for gsmp-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 9 Nov 2003 12:02:11 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AIsx1-0002P6-De for gsmp-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 09 Nov 2003 12:02:11 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA03733 for <gsmp-web-archive@ietf.org>; Sun, 9 Nov 2003 12:01:57 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AIsx0-0003rF-00 for gsmp-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Nov 2003 12:02:10 -0500
Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AIswz-0003rB-00 for gsmp-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Nov 2003 12:02:09 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AIswr-0002OZ-W5; Sun, 09 Nov 2003 12:02:01 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AIswS-0002Lp-Du for gsmp@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 09 Nov 2003 12:01:36 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA03697 for <gsmp@ietf.org>; Sun, 9 Nov 2003 12:01:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AIswR-0003q7-00 for gsmp@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Nov 2003 12:01:35 -0500
Received: from zctfs063.nortelnetworks.com ([47.164.128.120]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AIswP-0003pg-00 for gsmp@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Nov 2003 12:01:34 -0500
Received: from zctfc040.europe.nortel.com (zctfc040.europe.nortel.com [47.164.129.95]) by zctfs063.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id hA9H0wx00806; Sun, 9 Nov 2003 18:00:58 +0100 (MET)
Received: from zctfc002.europe.nortel.com ([47.164.129.43]) by zctfc040.europe.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id W3LAJ3CL; Sun, 9 Nov 2003 18:00:57 +0100
Received: from nortelnetworks.com (artpt5r0.us.nortel.com [47.140.52.151]) by zctfc002.europe.nortel.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id W37Y19QQ; Sun, 9 Nov 2003 18:00:58 +0100
Message-ID: <3FAE72FD.60600@nortelnetworks.com>
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2003 18:01:49 +0100
X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000
From: Kenneth Sundell <ksundell@nortelnetworks.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2
X-Accept-Language: en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: gsmp <gsmp@ietf.org>
CC: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>, Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com>, avri <avri@psg.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [GSMP] GSMP WG Status
Sender: gsmp-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: gsmp-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: gsmp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gsmp>, <mailto:gsmp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: General Switch Management Protocol WG <gsmp.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:gsmp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gsmp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gsmp>, <mailto:gsmp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hi, As has probably been noticed, the GSMP group is not scheduled to meet at this IETF. The reason for this is that there hasn't been enough dialogue on the list to warrant a meeting. It is not that work hasn't been continuing, it is that not enough of it has been done and not enough commenting has been done. But, the IETF meetings are a time for updating status. So, it seemed appropriate to put together a brief status report on the status of the group from the co-chairs' perspective. 1. Why GSMP But first, a recap of why we are doing this work. The simple answer is to support GMPLS. But this doesn't really answer the question of why. Why does GMPLS need the support? As most know, GMPLS requires that a routing/signaling control plane be associated with each switching device. In the original concept, this means that a single box will contain both the control plane and data plane entities. GSMP is meant to provide the ability to decouple the control plane from the data plane. For new equipment, the tightly couple method of deploying GMPLS is certainly a reasonable way for vendors to sell their solutions. Leaving aside the issue of whether this is always the most advantageous solution for their customers, there is still good reason to decouple the the control plane entities from the data plane entities. If GMPLS is to be deployed in the near term on equipment which is already deployed in customer networks, it will be necessary to find a way to deliver the control instructions to the data plane in a de-coupled manner. There may be other ways to this, e.g. TL/1 messaging, CLI messaging, SNMP and perhaps, someday XMLconf. GSMP offers a well defined and efficient means of doing providing this control link for MPLS and, if we finish our task, will provide an effective means of doing this for GMPLS as well. This info is included here because the main point, the fact that completing GSMP can aid in the deployment speed of GMPLS is sometimes overlooked when deciding on the priority for work items. 2. Status of work items We have missed our remaining milestones. These need to be reworked and to able to do that, we need to understand where we are at with the remaining work and with group participation. 2.1. Requirements Specification Completed and released since the last IETF as RFC3604. 2.2. Base Specification: Avri Doria http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-gsmp-v3-base-spec-04.txt This has gone through several revisions since the last IETF. Most of the requirements from RFC 3604, have been met, though there is still some explanatory text to be written. there is, however, a deficiency that has not yet been met that is not covered in the requirements. The structure for defining and controlling the optical layers is still open. While this may be useful for other technology specific areas, it will be critical for the TDM Technology support. More on this below. Once the layer information and updated text is produced, this spec will be ready for WGLC. 2.3 Packet Capable Switch Specification: Kenneth Sundell http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-gsmp-packet-spec-02.txt The draft has been updated to use the redefined base spec. The Base Doc + the Packet Switch document together are the functional equivalent of the existing GSMPv3 specification: RFC 3292. This specification is essentially done, but since it is dependent on the base spec it is waiting for WGLC until that spec is completed. There have been reviews of this specification on the list as of yet.. 2.4 Optical Switch Specification: Jung Yul Choi http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-gsmp-optical-spec-02.txt (-03 was sent to the list but didn't make it to the i-d repositories before the deadline). This draft is in its third revision. Many of the extension techniques generalized and imported into the base draft originated in the Optical spec. The Optical spec is being brought into alignment the base spec. Unfortunately this spec has not yet received extensive WG review. 2.5 TDM Switch Specification: Jonathan Sadler As of yet unavailable. 2.6 Review and possible update to RFC 3295 - MIB for Base and Packet Capable - No owner 2.7 Review and possible update to RFC 3293 - encapsulation (as per requirements in RFC 3604) - no owner 2.8 MIB to cover Optical Switch Options - No Owner, but could be responsibility of team working on optical spec. 2.9 MIB to cover TDM Switch Options - No Owner, but could be responsibility of team working on TDM spec. 2.10. MIB/PIB/XMLconf for Dynamic partitioning: No Owner A lot of work was done on a PIB and a MIB for this before the WG was diverted into working on dynamic requirements specification RFC 3532. 3.0 Liaison with ITU-T SG15 Avri was invited to attend the latest ITU meeting as a representative from the GSMP group. The ITU is currently reviewing possibilities for protocols that satisfy the CCI interface in the ASON architecture. GSMP is seen as a strong candidate. One deficiency is the support that GSMP offers for supporting Optical layering. A requirements doc is forthcoming from Jonathan Sadler explicitly covering this requirement and making recommendations for its solution. This document was promised during the IETF timeframe, though of course it can be submitted until after the draft freeeze. 4.0 ForCES and GRMP Since the first days of ForCES there has been an assumption that GSMP may offer a vehicle for satisfying the ForCES protocol requirements. Investigating that possibility was also included in the GSMP charter. Recently Weiming Wang has produced a forCES candidate protocol called GRMP. GRMP is a derivative of GSMPv3. Weiming and Avri have been working together on reviewing the changes that might be necessary to both the base and to GRMP in order to make GRMP fit as another technology specific option to GSMPV3. This work is not yet completed, but has gone far enough to indicate that the integration of the two protocols is possible and would not be too onerous. Of course it is unknown at this time whether GRMP will be among the options selected by the ForCES WG. 5.0 Group Participation As has been discussed on the list WG participation or the lack of it is a real problem. While there are 5 or 6 people who are working on the specs or who do participate, the WG list is overly quiet. We need more people writing specs and we need many more reviewing the new specs and commenting publicly. As Bert wrote to the list, this is a real problem in terms of the being able to continue the WG until we finish the work, this has become a liability. while the ADs have not yet threatened to close the group, Bert has threatened to threaten. 6.0 Implementation Privately the WG chairs have been informed of several implementations (>5). Unfortunately none of them is public. This is not terribly helpful to fostering cooperation. We should be shortly getting to the point where different versions are tested for interoperability. This can't be done if folks are unwilling to speak publicly about their work. Ken and Avri Co-chairs GSMP WG _______________________________________________ GSMP mailing list GSMP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gsmp
- [GSMP] GSMP WG Status Kenneth Sundell
- [GSMP] RE: GSMP WG Status Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
- Re: [GSMP] RE: GSMP WG Status avri
- [GSMP] RE: GSMP WG Status Wataru Imajuku
- RE: [GSMP] RE: GSMP WG Status Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
- Fw: [GSMP] RE: GSMP WG Status Wang,Weiming
- RE: [GSMP] RE: GSMP WG Status Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
- Re: [GSMP] RE: GSMP WG Status Marcus Brunner
- Re: [GSMP] RE: GSMP WG Status Kenneth Sundell
- Re: [GSMP] RE: GSMP WG Status Avri Doria