RE: Draft minutes from Seoul

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

Please see text in-line for appropriate additions/enhancements
relative to my comments during the meeting and comments
on my presentation of draft-dachille-inter-area-path-protection.

Thanks,
-Vishal

PS: Kireeti, please see if I captured your concluding comment
on my presentation accurately (at the very end of this email).

> -----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".
> 

<<snip>>

> ---
> 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.

I think the sequence went something like this ...

Vishal Sharma asked if the three issues (slide 6) were already 
opened up for discussion on the list, or would they be
formally opened up with the DT members initiating a discussion
on these on the list?

To this Lyndon Ong replied that a discussion had not been formally
opened up yet (although people were free to discuss/comment).

At that point, Kireeti asked Lyndon to more formally open this
discussion on the ML.

Vishal Sharma then 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.
> 
<snip>

> ===
> 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.

Vishal Sharma said that 
- The work should apply to general path computation domains and GMPLS LSPs
- In response to Aarthi's 
question on Slide "Outstanding Issues" (about whether detailed description 
of various path computation algorithms should be part of this document 
or separate document(s)), he supported
the document being split into a framework document, discussing
signaling, and another document(s), discussing the path computation
mechanisms, since the latter do not need to be standardized.

- In response to Slide "Outstanding Issues:
Size of the document" and for clarity, he supported the splitting 
of the applicability statement into an independent document.


>   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 then said that he would be happy to help with
the above tasks.

> ---
> 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.

I suggest that it also be noted here that "he emphasized that 
this is really a generic mechanism for diverse path computation, and
protection is one application of it, so the authors would respin
with a new name and emphasis to reflect this."

>   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.

More accurately ...

Vishal replied that the solutions to this were, so far, not discussed 
in the draft, but that there are several options. 

He then outlined some of the options. E.g. either default in such a
case to a sequential computation, and use XRO to exclude the link/node
where backup path setup failed, and retry the backup (and optimize
both primary and secondary later using the techniques in the draft).
Or, set up the primary and the backup again, using the techniques
described in the draft.

Vishal said they would be happy to add some discussion in the
document, and welcomed feedback on the list.

I believe Zafar also asked how this work relates to PCS/PCE
work, and I replied that it could actually be made use of
by the PCS/PCE approach, and could be viewed as complementary.

Kireeti then asked us to take the discussion to the list, and 
I welcomed further feedback on the document.
 
>   Dimitri asked why the document is so focused on
>   optimization.

Vishal clarified that as he had mentioned at the outset, the
focus of the work is to propose a generic mechanism to facilitate
diverse path setup by communicating alternate path info., with
optimization a desired goal (for reasons explained in the document).

Vishal added that given the network model (where border nodes
are not assumed to have visibility in areas other than their own), the 
scheme was not trying to be globally optimal.

At this point, Kireeti asked that further discussion on
this should be taken to the list.
 
>   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.

It should also be noted in the minutes that ...

Kireeti concluded by saying that this work was in the charter, but the 
document would be considered for a WG document only after there was 
discussion about the document on the list.