Folks,
Please comment on these minutes of the CCAMP WG meeting. If there are no
comments by Friday, I will archive them.
Ron
===============================
IETF 54 CCAMP Meeting Minutes
==============================
Schedule rearranged due to technical difficulties.....
0930-0935
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-swallow-gmpls-overlay-00.txt
G.Swallow: discussed the application of gmpls for overlay
networks, ending with a proposal for making this a
wg i-d (proposed standard)
K.Kompella: asked for people in favor/opposed: Fewer than
thirty people resonded, with a slight majority of those responding
in favor.
S.Throwbridge: asked whether the proposal was aligned with
the carrier requirements (without more details)
K.Kompella: let's bring it to the mailing list.
also some comments:
" Dmitri: Could you comment on applicability of incompatibility with
other documents."
"Can you comment on backward compatibility with the other lmp
documents ?"
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.
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?
Lang: Yes, security considerations are mandatory.
Kim: 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.
Attachment:
IETF55.zip
Description: Zip compressed data