[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Revised draft minutes
Hello Adrian,
Please let me put my comments in the two blank portions of the revised
agenda.
See in line.
Kohei
This draft incorporates feedback from Dimitri and Vishal
and from an anonymous reviewer. Thanks.
Further comments ASAP.
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 draft (l1vpn
framework) provided in the liaison could include a
summarization (as conclusion) on the expected GMPLS work
for the CCAMP WG, this would clarify the intent of the
liaison in term of expected effort for the CCAMP WG
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.
Kohei Shiomoto said that the protocol for the L1VPN should be developed
at the IETF as long as it uses IP protocol. There are already
internet-drafts on GVPN and CCAMP is the best place to discuss it.
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. There is a
deadline on G.7713 (April 2004), isn't there a similar
deadline on G.7713.2 (since this is the document to which
convergence is expected) ?
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 year's liaison from
the ITU.
The discussion slides proposed to defer to the GROW WG
(cf. RIFT WG item) concerning the (external) non-IP
reachability issue since much broader than just CCAMP
GMPLS/ASON context
After this meeting, Dimitri would like to re-spin the
draft and have a two week last call.
Lyndon said he want to capture the requirement on "non-IP
reachability" - 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 object that
encodes the long call_id (alternatives were also proposed)
His objective at this point is to try to have a document
ready for last call for the next IETF 60 meeting in San
Diego
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 the Design Team's
conclusions as to what there is agreement about what's
missing from GMPLS (delta), and what are the areas on
which there is no agreement about what's missing from
GMPLS.
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?
Lyndon Ong replied that a discussion had not been
formally opened up yet (although people were free to
discuss/comment).
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.
Kohei said that the e2e Signaling draft does not address the
misconnection issues raised in the mailing list.
Dimitri answered that it is addressed in 8.3 of the draft.
Kohei said that the misconnection issue does not happen only in the P&R
context but also in more general context and therefore should be
addressed in more general context as well.
Kireeti said that the questions should be contiuned to the mailing 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 the work should apply to general
path computation domains and GMPLS LSPs.
In response to Arthi'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.
In addition, he questioned about the relevance of using
the LSP_Attributes to signal the signaling method for the
intra-area/-AS provisioning of the LSP.
In particular, he proposed to not include protocol
procedures within examples/scenarios that makes the
document difficult to read.
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 these 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.
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.
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.
Zafar asked how this work relates to PCS/PCE work.
Vishal replied that it could actually be made use of by
the PCS/PCE approach, and could be viewed as
complementary.
Kireeti asked that further discussion be taken to the
list.
Vishal said he welcomed further feedback on the document.
Dimitri asked why, knowing that the proposed approach
works as expected in the intra-domain case when the
number of ABRs (where computation can be executed at each
stage) does not increase, this approach is so focused on
optimization (since it can't be achieved if this
condition is not met).
Vishal clarified that 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.
Vishal explained that in such cases some selection needs
to be performed at each stage.
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.
Kireeti concluded by saying that path protection and
inter-area are both in the charter, but that this document
could only be considered for a WG document after there was
discussion about the document on the list.
===
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. In particular to
include in the charter the complete set of GMPLS
mechanisms for integrated control planes, and not only
multi-layer recovery (as it stands today).
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.
--
Kohei Shiomoto
NTT Network Innovation Laboratories
3-9-11 Midori, Musashino, Tokyo 180-8585, Japan
Phone +81 422 59 4402 Fax +81 422 59 6387