Re: [Raw] RAW WG minutes - IETF 116

[Eve Schooler <[e-mail]>]

Hi All,
Final minutes from the RAW WG session at the IETF 116 are attached.
They are also viewable at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-116-raw-202303310300/
Thanks,
Eve & Rick

On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 5:49 PM Eve Schooler <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi All,
> Below are draft minutes RAW WG from the IETF 116 meeting
> All corrections/feedback most welcome.
> Many thanks,
> Eve & Rick
>
> -----
>
> RAW WG Agenda IETF-116 - Yokohama
> =================================
> Date: Friday, March 31, 2023 - Session II
> Time: 12:00-13:30 Tokyo / 4:00-5:30 UTC -- 90 mins
>
> Chairs:
>   Rick Taylor <[e-mail]>
>   Eve Schooler <[e-mail]>
>
> Responsible AD: John Scudder <[e-mail]>
>
> Onsite tool: https://meetings.conf.meetecho.com/onsite116/?group=raw
> Meetecho: https://meetings.conf.meetecho.com/ietf116/?group=raw
> Session materials: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/116/session/raw
> Shared notetaking: https://notes.ietf.org/notes-ietf-116-raw
> Zuilip https://zulip.ietf.org/#narrow/stream/raw
>
> Available post session:
> Recording: http://www.meetecho.com/ietf116/recordings#RAW
>
> Notetakers: Eve Schooler
>
> # 1) Intro - Chairs -- 10 mins
> - Administrivia
> - Document status
>
> Eve Schooler: LDACS published as RFC 9372!!! Major Congratulations to all
> involved.
>
> # 2) Use Cases - Carlos Bernardos -- 20 mins
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-raw-use-cases/
>
> John Scudder: next step will be for me as AD to review the updates
> (particularly since Roman cleared all the Discusses). It looks like there
> shouldn't be any further process needed. It that is the case, then I
> approve, and off it goes to the RFC editor. Should be able to take care of
> that in the coming week.
> Carlos Bernardos: Thank you for all your support!
>
> # 3) RAW Mobility - Carlos Bernardos -- 10 mins
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bernardos-raw-mobility/
>
> Carlos: Mobility likely relevant to a number of use cases. Where the
> terminal is mobile, but with constraints/requirements due to RAW.
> Also presented this material in the DMM WG (distributed mobility
> management).
> Extensions to IPv6 for handovers. Not completely new on its own.
> Collecting feedback from DMM and RAW.
> Question: Do we think it is an interesting problem?
>
> Janos Farkas: Is this technique needed in 5G, as a RAW technology?
> Carlos: Not sure with the current specification if this has been
> considered, with the very high constraints of RAW. Not sure how done with
> URLLC.
> Also in WiFi, depending on the technology, the optional step mentioned in
> the Figure (step 0) may have more or less info. So it may be something to
> integrate into the next version of the doc.
>
> Rick Taylor: Whether this has applicability across multiple lower layers?
> If yes, then it will be useful.
> Carlos: We may also have, not explicitly mentioned yet, multiple
> technology handover. A terminal may be attached to a WiFi pt of attachment,
> gets out of coverage, then need to migrate to 5G. May need something on top
> of L2 to support.
>
> Balazs Varga: Re 5G, in 3GPP R18, they have generalized TCS support, where
> the endpoints are fully covered with the functionality including handover.
>
> Carlos: Feedback so far is that there is interest.
> Rick: yes, there is interest. Please continue.
>
> # 4) RAW OAM -- Carlos Bernardos -- 10 mins
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-raw-oam-support/
>
> Presenting on behalf of co-authors.
> The document is pretty stable, ready for last call.
> About to be done both with DetNet and RAW OAM.
> Eve: Likely need the architecture document to be stable before finishing
> the OAM draft.
> Rick: The doc has sufficient review. WGLC is a valid request.
> Lou Berger: Going to last call is a good idea. Could ask: should this wait
> for the Architecture doc, or what part is blocked by the architecture? The
> OAM suite of docs: the DetNet framework is in John's queue and we have an
> MPLS doc and an IP doc is almost there (one section needs revision). These
> are all DetNet OAM documents.
> John: Natural time
> Lou: Good time to respond to the Architecture readiness. We need to close
> off on those discussion issues from last October and make sure they are
> addressed. Some are terminology. Some are how to represent the wireless
> layer to the routing layer.
> Rick: we will return to the Architecture WGLC topic later in the session.
>
> # 5) Discussion/Open Mic -- 30 mins
>
> ### IEEE 802 Plenary in July!
> Invitation from IEEE 802 to provide a RAW Tutorial at the upcoming plenary
> in July.
> Janos will provide the DetNet background, and Carlos to provide the RAW
> overview.
> Janos in chat window: Remote participation at the IEEE 802 tutorial will
> be possible for free. Information will be available here:
> https://www.ieee802.org/Tutorials.shtml
>
> ### Changes to RAW WG:
> Eve: Eve and Rick have had a change of work circumstances and are needing
> to step-away from co-chairing RAW. After discussion with John, Lou, Janos,
> the idea is to re-integrate RAW back into DetNet, from which it was spawned.
> Rick: The intention however is to shepherd RAW through the transition.
> Have been a bit stuck with the architecture doc, and think it would benefit
> by pulling it into the broader DetNet forum, to achieve wider review.
> It is a super valuable piece of work that could use scrutiny beyond RAW
> which has turned out to be a rather smaller venue.
>
> John: If folks have concerns, please reach out to the chairs (RAW or
> DetNet) or to John or to whomever you are most comfortable, and we will
> happily consider your inputs.
>
> Carlos: Thank you to the co-chairs.
> Question: how do we plan to add into DetNet, which already has a full
> plate?
> Rick: Have been talking with Janos and Lou about exactly that.
> Lou: Echo thanks for shepherding the activities in RAW. How are we
> thinking of managing the added load? DetNet is in a different place than
> when RAW was spawned. A lot of the original work is coming to a close right
> now. The DetNet group is more mature, though it is not idle. We have a new
> theme on queueing, which appeals to just a small segment of interested
> parties in DetNet. The other parts of the group are more about general
> deterministic networks, that can be leveraged to align with RAW. We often
> manage the time by having side meetings that are lengthy and that go deep
> on a topic. Overall: DetNet co-chairs are very hopeful about the plan.
>
> Rick from chat: Agree with John - this is not intended to be a sudden,
> undiscussed transition. We want to make sure any transition is good for RAW
> and happens on a sensible timescale.
>
> Poll: If you only attend RAW, raise your hand. About half of the RAW
> participants on the meeting ONLY attend RAW vs RAW+DetNet.
>
> Rick: Key concern: the future of the Architecture draft. It is a bit
> stalled.
>
> Discussion in chat window on the Architecture doc:
>
> Pascal: I posted 2 revisions since last IETF, addressing terminology and
> other issues.
> Lou: I don't think my comments from October ever got addressed.
> Pascal: I believe whatever is left can be WGLC issues.
> Lou: I should say fully addressed, i.e., we still had some open points.
> Pascal: Well we need a new review cycle to see what’s left. WGLC would be
> fine for that
> Pascal: I think I addressed the Overhearing thingy in January.
> Janos: Now that IETF 115 was mentioned, I'm not sure that the IETF 115
> discussion items have been addressed. For instance, PAREO as such is layer
> violation, hence the draft does not follow the layering model.
> Pascal: There were changes in the doc for t hat. Did you check the diffs?
> Janos: Well, PAREO is still in the draft...
> Pascal: Yes and the interactions of layers discussed.
> Pascal: the big PAREO section was removed as agreed.*
>
> John: Agree with Pascal that sometimes the only way to drive the level of
> engagement necessary to get a doc over the line is to declare a WGLC. Let's
> suppose we'll use a WGLC as an announced period of time, "speak now or
> forever hold your peace". Even if moving into DetNet, Eve and Rick should
> likely be involved in that WGLC.
>
> Lou: From an administrative perspective, do not have an objection to a
> last call in BOTH working groups. From the technical side: the disconnect
> in the discussion is because of the need to have a wider perspective on the
> Architecture. For example, how the RAW architecture fits into the existing
> DetNet and TEAS architectures. But the way it is written is as if some of
> the concerns are narrowly just wireless, but actually not unique to
> wireless. How do we close on those points? Both terminology and technical,
> e.g., promiscuous over-hearing not just wireless (Ethernet).
>
> Rick: This was the outcome of the previous IETF. Agreement that wider
> review still needed, beyond RAW perhaps.
>
> Eve: Yes to the idea of WGLC in BOTH groups.
>
> Lou: Would either of the RAW co-chairs be willing to be Shepherd?
>
> Action items:
> - Use Cases to final review by John, in short order, possibly as soon as
> next week
> - WGLC OAM draft
> - WGLC Architecture draft - jointly with DetNet - Eve to serve as shepherd
> - Technologies - Carlos writeup forthcoming on the order of weeks
> - Industrial Requirements - new contributors solicited to help it get to
> WGLC (Carlos, Corinna, Eve all interested)
> - Ask the WG mailing list, who ONLY attends RAW vs RAW+DetNet
>
>