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

[Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com>]

forgot to mention that inter-area/AS TE was added as
a work item.
-- 
Alex

Thursday, September 11, 2003, 2:38:50 PM, Alex Zinin wrote:
> 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