GMPLS Protection and Restoration Design Team - Report

[Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be]

ccamp'ers,

Here below the report of the GMPLS protection and restoration
design team:

Team goals were defined as follows: 

Starting point Protection & Restoration produced by the TEWG 
Design Team. The produced functionality should satisfy these 
requirements; content that goes beyond these requirements or 
doesn't meet some of them should be called out so that the
wg can re-evaluate. 

Expected documents:

1. Produce a terminology document, delivering a decoder ring to 
   translate to terminology in current drafts as well as the TE 
   WG document. 

2. Produce an (interim) analysis document, comparing and contrasting 
   approaches (i.e., the above drafts, published and ongoing work  
   at the ITU/T1-X1/...) 

   note: from this perspective a decoder table on the current 
   methodologies/mechanisms may be additionally delivered in (1)

3. Produce a functional spec delineating 

   - What's in scope, out of scope, what's for future study, which 
   of the TEWG reqts have been met, which not, and what goes beyond.     
   - This document should detail the overall approach objects/
   procedures/... needed in a protocol-independent fashion 

   note: point one will be translated by delineating content and
   definition included in (1) 

4. Produce protocol specification

   4.1 Produce a document detailing the changes for RSVP-TE 

   4.2 Produce a document detailing the changes for OSFP-TE and IS-IS-TE 

Timeline:

- Ietf53 (march'02) both were discussed in minneapolis 1. (i.e.
  the terminology i-d) had become upon community agreement wg 
  i-d 

  note: nearly on time with the initially expected timeline for 
  this first step

- Ietf54 (july'02) decision upon closing content to be 
  included in the analysis i-d two weeks after the meeting
  
  => A version -02.txt of the analysis i-d had been submitted 
     end of august. Also a functional specification has been 
     delivered at the same time (had not been submitted on time 
     to be discussed during ietf54 meeting)

  note: compared to the initially expected timeline, this was 
  delayed by one ietf meeting

- Ietf55 (nov'02) decision upon analysis and signalling 
  functional specification to be discussed, once agreed
  work on 4.1 and 4.2 should started first discussion to
  be expected for Ietf56 (stabilizing protocol specification
  should be achievable during '03 time it would be take
  greatly depends upon the what's in/what's out/what's for
  the next step decision)

  note: compared to the initially expected timeline, this was 
  delayed by two ietf meetings

Intermediate Conclusion:

- Still some work to be produced in particular with respect
  to the protocol specification (expectation within a year
  for a first phase)

- Delay can be explained in several ways 1) over time, the
  more we get into the details the more time it took to 
  described and analyze the situation - as such the fact
  the scope is closed now will help in achieving a tolerable
  complexity level and allow for a first phase completion 2)
  the timeline was probably too tight in order to allow for
  any delay which has been accumulated after ietf'53 


See we in atlanta,

thanks,
- dimitri (for the p&r dt).