-----Original Message-----
From: yhwkim@etri.re.kr [mailto:yhwkim@etri.re.kr]
Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2002 9:59 PM
To: Ronald.P.Bonica@wcom.com; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: [회신] IETF 55 - CCAMP MinutesHi Ron,
Thank you for the minutes.Speaker 1 is Kim.
And, I'd like to change the minutes of Speaker-1 as follows:Kim: Question RE: LMP. I checked minor editing errors in LMP Ver 7. After this meeting I'll tell Mr. Lang them.
After reading LMP specification, I believe the security consideration has mandatory configuration.
Is my understanding right?
원본 내용:
보낸사람: Ron Bonica[Ronald.P.Bonica@wcom.com]
받는사람: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
제목: IETF 55 - CCAMP Minutes
받은날짜: 2002/11/25 월 07:26
Folks,
CCAMP WG minutes follow. Slides are attached. Please comment on the minutes
within two weeks so that we can make any required corrections and enter them
into the record.
Ron
P.S. Kireeti's presentation provides a snapshot of WG status. I will make
sure that the ID tracker stays up to date so we will always have a current
picture of WG status.
===============================IETF 54 CCAMP Meeting Minutes
==============================
Schedule rearranged due to technical difficulties.....
Kireeti: Can someone come up here and sing during the break? *)
0935 - 0950
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-06.txt
Lang
Provided summary of updates to LMP draft. See his slides for details.
Thinks we are ready for IESG last call. Summary of updates to LMP WDM draft.
See slides for details. Ready for WG last call.
Bonica: initiate last call on list after meeting.
LMP Test Sonet SDH draft. See slides for details. After changes, we should
solicit
comments from list. We would like a WG last call thereafter. Get a feel from
the room?
Kireeti: Assuming that J0-64 format is removed, are there any comments?
Bert: The base LMP document was intended for proposed standard. We got
pushback
from ITU people stating that we should not be working on some of this stuff,
so we
split it out to a separate document. Are we intending on prop standard for
this stuff?
Kireeti: Yes, prop. Standards stuff.
Bert: Are we on our proper turf? I would like ITU people to speak up on this
as well
as review it. I don't want discussion during last call, want resolution now.
Speaker 1: Question RE: LMP. After this meeting I intend to start a draft.
After reading LMP specification, I believe it has mandatory configuration.
Are there security considerations.
Lang: Yes, security considerations are mandatory.
Speaker 1: I would like security to be optional.
Bert: Security considerations may not be optional. We can have some as
optional,
but some mandatory security options are required.
Kireeti: It is mandatory to define security - how to run LMP in a secure
mode.
It is not mandatory to run LMP in a secure mode. Can you?
Lang: That is correct, it can be run un-secure. Ipsec is defined for LMP.
If you do not want to run IPSec, you can run it without.
Speaker 2: I am concerned about J0 encoding. It doesn't seem to be
consistent with ITU
T.50 requirement. Printable ASCII characters in particular might be an
issue.
Bert: Please pose question to mailing list.
Ron: That way we will have record of conversation.
Lyndon Ong(Cienna): My company is editing 7714.1 ITU document. Will there
be any
additional alignment with this?
Lang: I think the 7714.1 document is more closely related to bootstrap
document, and
I would lke to discuss this in next part of presentation.
Lyndon: This is now taking LMP and LMP-WDM that are tech specific. Are there
any non-tech
specific things that cannot be applied to both.
Lang: The whole document can be applied to both.
Kireeti: Is there any objection in ITU from letting IETF have this document
or will
we dribble out requirements one by one?
ITU leason: I cannot speak for all ITUT, but we need to socialize this
within the ITU.
There is work going on with regard to discovery in ITU 7714 that might need
to be aligned.
However, I will try to get discussion going on rapidly.
Dmitry P: There may be issues with the way the messages are encoded.
Kireeti: We are not talking about discovery; test messages. Documents were
separated
so that we can work issues doc-by-doc. Good to get ruling for each
document. The
typical issues with using J0 etc... has rules for how to use this. Make
clear that
that some issues are about before service starts.
Speaker 5: 7714 issue: if they do the same thing, then why define two
documents for this?
Lang: There may be overlap between next document, but not here.
Speaker 5: Need to be clear about what the overlaps are.
Lang: Bootstrap document (next doc), the intro describes why the doc exists.
Prev. document is defined in LMP base document. If you disagree, let me
know.
LMP Bootstrap document. See slides for details. This is not WG document.
Would like
technical comments on list.
Dmitri: Could you comment on applicability of incompatibility with other
documents.
Lang: The point to make is the information exchanged is the same as that for
the LMP
protocol. There is no new information exchanged.
Kireeti: We need to continue this on the list (ITU input) on how we move
these documents
forward.
Kireeti - CCAMP 55 WG status.
Kireeti: Is there any problem with sending GMPLS framework to IESG as
informational.
Bert: I reviewed this doc a while back, and question is that non-standard
extensions are
detailed here. This seems strange to publish a document that suggests a way
of signaling
things without a document being somewhere that details the specifics
somewhere.
Dmitri: We have been looking for comments RE: pointers/document to fulfill
your query. I
think it is unfair to continue without filling these requirements. When I
sent comments
on the list, I asked people to provide pointers. If people would like to
continue, please
send pointers ASAP.
Kireeti: As a fallback, what are we going to do if no docs are received.
Bert: Throw it into the garbage.
Kireeti: Unless we get pointers, this goes in the can.
Kireeti: One thing has been asked about is changes to the charter. We want
to make
changes to the charter. Please send us suggestions. Few additions:
inter-area (within AS
domain), Protection/restoration, optical VPN. This will be discussed
partially during
SUB-IP meeting, but approval of charter changes come from IESG.
JPV: Question about the charter. Will signaling between computation server
and client are
part of the charter, or do we need to add?
Kireeti: The current charter does not explicitly have this. This is part of
the charter
extensions we are asking for.
JPV: This can be used in other areas.
Kireeti: Don't go there. If it is in the charter it is, if not then no. Need
to make sure
this is in the charter.
Ron: I will send out an update on the charter additions (proposed) to the
mailing list.
Ashok - Interoperability draft.
Kireeti: FEC change and TSPEC changes are orthogonal to GMPLS. These are
issues for RSVP.
Bert: These are separate documents. Do this in RSVP.
Lou: Spec. requires TSPEC. Lets talk about this offline.
Kireeti: Okay. I want to talk about some implementation recommendations. How
are these
published?
Bert: Implementation recommendations are fine to either publish as BCP or
Informational.
I am worried about the limited set of specifications/issues and that they
are captured.
Kireeti: Generic RSVP things are already specified (according to Lou). Lets
talk about
this offline to see where changes are required. Define what issues are, how
are they
specified. Do this offline. Should we add recommendations to implementation
survey as an
appendix?
Bert: Whichever.
Lou: These look like guidelines to implementations. This is usually done
outside of spec.
done as BCP/Info.
Kireeti: Question is where to put it.
Lou: Seems like this is not a BCP.
Kireeti: Too early to say that these include "best" practices. Looks
informational.
Need to talk with Lou about remaining issues.Tom Nadeau did a presentation on the discussions
regarding the GMPLS MIBs at the Sat MIB Meeting.
* how Saturday meeting affects the GMPLS MIBs?
* issues for CCAMP: how to represent SONET (i.e.
longer) labels
* proposed solution on label/index given
Tom asked for feedback from the working group
on this proposed solution
type field + octet string
goal is to support longer labels
* Comment by Kireeti to rename
Link Bundling MIB to TE-LINK-MIB.
(No questions on presentation).Nadeau: MIB overview presentation
Dora: MIB discussion. 2 issues.
Tom: SNMP is just another management interface, and like any other tool, it
needs to be
used appropriately. Otherwise, you will have scalability and provisioning
issues.
Kireeti: Lets have a discussion on the list for all of these things.
Bert: Discussion going on in IESG/SNMP community. Been hearing that people
do not want to
use SNMP for configuration. However, I will defer to the WG for guidance
on this. We
need discussion on this issue, in particular from operators.
Kireeti: We should take this to the mailing list.Protection/Restoration Team:
Kireeti: I suggest that you kick off a discussion so that people can pick on
points that
might be controversial. We need to do this before we make this a WG
document. We need to
take this into account.
Dmitri: We took existing protocols and analysed them. What I have said is
a
consolidation. I think we are fine with the scope. We need to focus on the
validation.
Kireeti: We need to make sure there is a consensus on your cut off that it
was reasonable.
Bonica: Tunnel trace draft. See slides. Is the requirements draft ready for
WG last call.
Monique: How is this going to relate to LSP Ping?
Ron: When you discover a tunnel, GTTP invokes LSP ping. There is one open
item: if the
LSP is supported by an IP/IP tunnel. LSP Ping will not tell you this.
Kireeti: Are there any comments from anyone else? The requirements document
is a WG
document. Can we have a show of hands for support of GTTP proposed solution
as WG
document? We have a small consensus in favor of this. Go back to mailing
list to confirm.
Dmitri: Draft.
Dmitri: When you increase the scope of what GMPLS may cover. We need to
handle the
limited complexity here. This is what we have worked on. We need to handle
optical/PSTN.
Kireeti: Lets not make this a WG document until discussion on the list.
===========================================
Ronald P. Bonica Ph: 703 886 1681
vBNS Engineering page: 1 888 268 8021
Ashburn, Va.
===========================================
"We are not on Earth to guard a museum, but
to cultivate a flourishing garden of life."
-- Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli