RE: Draft minutes from Seoul: Need enhancements

["Vishal Sharma" <v.sharma@ieee.org>]

Just want to let you know that there are gaps in 
the minutes, with respect to the comments I made on 
various other drafts, and what was said in response to queries 
on draft-achille-inter-area-protection, which I had presented.

I will be sending the more accurate text to help complete
the minutes.

-Vishal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org]On
> Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
> Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 6:30 AM
> To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Draft minutes from Seoul
> 
> 
> 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 <kireeti@juniper.net>
>         Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
> 
> 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.
> 
>     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).
> 
>     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.
> 
>   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.
> 
>   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.
> 
>   His objective at this point is to try to have last call
>   on this
> 
>   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.
> 
>   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
>   and made some suggestions for clarification of the draft.
> 
>     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.
> 
>   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.
> 
>   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.
>