Re: Internal WG Review: Common Control and Measurement Plane (ccamp)

[Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com>]

Harald,

Thursday, September 11, 2003, 1:41:08 PM, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> Alex,

> can you give an "exective summary" of what has changed?

Certainly. Before we go there, please note that the goal was
not to redefine the scope of the WG, but to make the charter
more organized and better reflect what the WG is really doing.

 1. The main change is the hosting area (SUB->RTG). I will be moving
    MPLS too, btw.

 2. Rearrange the text of the charter for better understanding as
    follows:

     <Intro para with a high-level statement of what the WG does>

     <More specific overall scope description>

     <Current work items>

    So, the new text you see in the intro para was taken verbatim
    from what is currently the 1st item in the WG task list. The
    reason is that this part is generic for the overall work the WG
    is doing, not that particular item.

    I also split what is currently the list of tasks into the overall
    scope definition and then actual work items the WG is working on.
    As the WG moves along, I expect the latter to change to reflect
    the actual work items with corresponding milestones.

 3. Define more specifically what the WG is doing.
    E.g. what used to be:

> - Define signalling protocols and measurement protocols such that they
>   support multiple physical path and tunnel technologies (e.g. O-O and
>   O-E-O optical switches, ATM and Frame Relay switches, MPLS, GRE)
> using
>   input from technology-specific working groups such as MPLS, IPO, etc.

is now:

>  - Definition of protocol(s) and extensions to them required for
>      link and path attribute measurement. Link Management Protocol (LMP)
>      is included here.
> 
>  - Functional specification of extensions for routing (OSPF, ISIS) and
>      signalling (RSVP-TE) required for path establishment. Protocol formats
>      and procedures that embody these extensions will be done jointly with
>      the WGs supervising those protocols.
 
  4. Added MIBs as the scope item explicitly.

  5. Added ASON requirements work

Some more specific changes:

removed this para--

> - Define signalling and measurement protocols that are independent of
>   each other.  This allows applications other than the signalling
>   protocol to use the measurement protocol; it also allows the
>   signalling protocol to use knowledge obtained by means other than the
>   measurement protocol.

--as separation is already mentioned in the intro para

removed this--
> - Define the relationship between layer 3 routing protocols and the
>   common signalling protocol for establishing and maintaining paths.

--because there is no activity in the WG on this item, the WG chairs
don't really know why we need this... The closest thing that comes to
my mind would be description of the CSPF calculation, however, we
don't need to define it as the LSP route is explicitly signalled.

Some other minor wording changes...

See below as well

> --On 11. september 2003 13:47 -0400 iesg-secretary@ietf.org wrote:

> The intro paragraph

>>  The CCAMP working group coordinates the work within the IETF defining
>>  a common control plane and a separate common measurement plane for ISP
>>  and SP physical path and core tunneling technologies (e.g. O-O and
>>  O-E-O optical switches, ATM and Frame Relay switches, MPLS, GRE) in
>>  cooperation with the MPLS WG. In this context, measurement refers to
>>  the acquisition and distribution of attributes relevant to the setting
>>  up of tunnels and paths.

> has acquired some new text (everything from the first parenthesis out), and 
> there is some text, like

>> - Define the relationship between layer 3 routing protocols and the
>>  common signalling protocol for establishing and maintaining paths.

> that has disappeared. Too many changes for me to easily comprehend.....

see above

> if reviewed as a new charter, I'd say:

> - SP and ISP appear core to the scope def, but are used without definition

taken verbatim from the current charter

> - No mention of security - is this obvious enough to the participants that 
> it doesn't need to be mentioned?

yes. I tell our WG chairs that security is within the charter by
default.

> - nit: in the intro paragraph, you say "core tunneling technologies (e.g. 
> O-O and O-E-O optical switches, ATM and Frame Relay switches, MPLS, GRE)" - 
> grammar-wise, the first 4 named things are switches, the two last are 
> protocols, and neither is a "technology". Understandable, but not easily 
> parsed.

taken from the current one, but can be fixed, of course.

> - the "tracetunnel" bullet point of "currently working on" doesn't seem to 
> be reflected in the goals and milestones.

This one?
 Jan 04 Produce CCAMP WG document for generic tunnel tracing protocol

> But this isn't a new charter. It might be better to get this charter out 
> than to spend excessive time wordsmithing it, due to internal dynamics in 
> the WG. I don't know what/how the WG is doing.

I'd prefer not to change the text substantially unless there is a
serious reason for this. Clarifications should be fine, of course.

Alex

> Thoughts?

>                  Harald