FW: Final Summary of subip Directorate meeting - 56th IETF

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

FYI

Thanks,
Bert 

-----Original Message-----
From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com]
Sent: donderdag 27 maart 2003 2:50
To: Subip-Dir (E-mail)
Subject: Final Summary of subip Directorate meeting - 56th IETF


Here is the final summary.

If anyone wants to dive into a specific topic, I propose to change the
subject line to that topic so that we get separate threads for that.

-------- draft summary ----

Date:       19 March 2003
Location:   San Francisco, 56th IETF
Present at the meeting:
  Kireeti Kompella
  George Swallow
  Andy Malis
  Ken Sundell
  Avri Doria
  Thomas Narten  
  Scott BRadner
  Luca Martini
  Rick Wilder
  Marco Carugi
  Ron Bonica
  Steve Trowbridge
  Alex Zinin
  Bert Wijnen 
 
1.future of subip
  - We (ADs) have socialized earlier in the week the plans for
    closing subip area in next 3-6 months and moving remaining
    work to other (permanent) Areas. 
  - After some more discussion we seem to have consensus:
    - move CCAMP and MPLS to same place at same time
      they go to RTG area
    - move PPVPN to INT
      ensure good interaction with many other areas
      ensure tech advisor from RTG area (Alex)
    - GSMP needs more than 6 months to finish
      possibly recharter in 6-9 months
      move to OPS area (it is management)
    - IPO close soon, they have finished their work
    - TEWG to finish current work within 6 months, then close.
      Soon (possibly even before TEWG closes) start a teOps WG 
      (in OPS area) to send msg that we will focus on TE 
      techniques that can be used with current technology.
      The new WG to do BCPs and/or requirements.

2.multi-area TE 
  - requirements in TEWG, protocol work (if any) in CCAMP or MPLS
  - inter-Area
  - inter-AS
  - requirements doc in current TEWG (or possibly in new teOps, 
    Kireeeti has offered to help write a good reqmnts doc
  - Alex, should we not do first inter-Area, later interAS
  - George: requirements differ, solution may be the same
    (this is based on a sneak peek)
  - We still do not want to work on inter-provider TE

3.Jerry Ash wants to work on VoMPLS e2e header compression
  - he wants to do this in MPLS
  - it is: voip over mpls
  - terminology: edge to edge, not end-to-end
  - IP and UDP header compression
  - we need a "lessons learned from ROHC"
  - seems more TSV related
  - possibly can toss it to PWE3 for that
  - Kireeti suggests: put it in RoHC, they write a functional spec
    and then throw it over to MPLS 
  - need to check with TSV ADs (Allison)
  - Curtis says: is it worth it if it is edge-to-edge...
    do we need to worry about that.
    seems consensus in directorate is to at least investigate

4.signal VLANs with MPLS
  - someone wants to do this, he is WG shopping
  - Kireeti: you can already do this
  - Kireeti thinks it belongs in MPLS 
  Not sure we reach a consensus position on this

5.point to multipoint extensions for RSVP-TE
  - MPLS WG seems to have a lot of support for this
  - there is a requirements doc.
  - May want to run this by TEWG (Action Bert)
  - there was a first proposed solution which was a mis-use of RSVP.
    That's now removed, sut solution is still incomplete.
  - requirement comes from NTT
  - Ron Bonica does not understand (yet) why you want to do this
  - It may be useful for VPN multicast applications 
    (some work WAS done in the past
     ex. VPN multicast framework by Alcatel research). 
  - Maybe test our change control process
  I think the consensus was that we would indeed try to throw this
  as a test into our proposed (G)MPLS change control process

6.OAM framework doc
  - Create in MPLS WG that takes technology specific look at OAM
  - George wants to add it to the charter
  - so it will be handled as part of WG charter update

7.PPVPN issues
  - Marco: PPVPN could consider work in PPVPN service OAM in the
           context of a PPVPN managemement framework (this framework
           is needed - initial work was started in the past)  
  - Marco: protocol specific work, OVPN and Multicast come up all the
           time. These are topics to be discussed in a later phase.
  - Alex has some concerns:
    - size of WG is overwhelming
    - too many items in charter
    - lack of focus (Marco does not agree)
    - does it make sense to split it into 2 WGs
      for example a layer3VPN WG and a layer2VPN WG ??
  - Marco believes he has quite good progress at the moment.
    Before any discussion on solutions, we should discuss and agree
    on issues, where issues exist. AD support is obviously welcomed
    as usual: we are pleased to discuss further with ADs the whole
    PPVPN context and coordinate at best (as it has happened up to
    now with Scott). No time to say more in this sub-ip meeting. 
    

Those present found the meeting usefull.

Note: Some people on Directorate feel that we DO need to keep some
      sort of directorate that spans all the related WGs, so that we
      have a place to discuss and try to ensure proper focus for
      SUB-IP related work. The temprorary SUB-IP area has had a
      potistive effect on moving work forward and keeping focus.

Notes/minutes by Bert Wijnen