[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Draft sub-ip area meeting - minutes
Thanks to Dimitri. Here are the draft meeting notes/minutes
Pls send in any corrections/additions you feel are needed.
Thanks,
Bert and Scott
------------------------------
The SUB-IP Area Meeting (sub-ip)
Tuesday, November 19 at 1930-2200
=================================
CHAIRS: Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>
Bert Wijnen <bwijnen@lucent.com>
notes by: Dimitri Papadimitriou
AGENDA:
1. area status ADs/chairs - 15 Mins
Bert Wijnen:
-----------
Made report on CCAMP WG:
- 3 Proposed Standards's
- but lot's of work still to be done (pointing
out the current protection and restoration
design team efforts, for instance)
Scott Bradner:
-------------
Made a report on the following working group:
GSMP WG - IPO WG - MPLS WG - PPVPN WG
Bert Wijnen:
-----------
Made a report on the TE WG (hint: no report
from Jim Boyle, Ed Kern and other WG chairs)
Marco Carugi:
------------
In PPVPN WG, two documents are generic requirements i-d's
more work needed wrt to the stability for the internet
and the rate of deployment, also to be emphasized the
cooperation with IEEE (on L2VPN)
Aggressive work plan is ongoing at the PPVPN WG on L3
VPN issues:
- L3 solution and requirements
- L3 IPSEC based solution and waiting from the response
from the author to progress further and move forward
==========================================================
2. options for the future of the area ADs - 15 Mins
Alex Zinin:
----------
Slides SUB-IP real glass versus Hour glass model: Status
of the SUB-IP area, what "seems" to be really in use wrt
to initial expectations
Alex provided a presentation on the hour glass model
Bert Wijnen:
The hour-glass model was discussed in the SUB-IP directorate
and discussions/results were published to the SUB-IP mailing
list (id-summary) with rough consensus on the details &
the common part of the documents; give as example the
traffic engineering working group efforts with its
requirements for restoration are used by the CCAMP Design Team
and when the MPLS WG recovery framework was done they were used
to evaluate how this framework addresses the requirements of
the design team of the TE WG
... but after more thoughts, it is not clear there was a real
consensus on the Hour glass model, at least people seem to be
working differently.
Eric Rosen:
----------
Not clear about the status and framework of the SUB-IP
area work ...
Alex Zinin:
----------
Introduce the discussion...
Bert Wijnen:
-----------
Thinks agreement was achieved ... but it turns out that
this didn't appear/was not clearly the case.
Alex Zinin:
----------
Show picture:
TE WG: does it really work on requirements ?
PPVPN WG: nothing to do with sub-ip area scope
CCAMP WG: control of mpls networks ? majority of the work
there not targetted to control mpls networks
Alex then explains the "real" model: what happens in reality
and the relationship between the working groups and the
development of routing extensions at PPVPN WG, CCAMP WG, etc.
Kireeti Kompella:
----------------
- This retrospect does not describe the overlap between the wg
and the interactions: CCAMP <-> MPLS, thus work on wg charters
(does for instance TE WG works on protocols from its charter ?)
- The charter for CCAMP WG should be common, currently this wg is
not only doing extensions only applicable to optical technologies,
application people were initially resulting is no clear separation
between optical applications and others
- Take the example of LMP which is common but also LMP is also
applicable to Sonet/SDH, G.709, etc. the same applies for the
routing extensions and that didn't apply to the IPO working group
charter so CCAMP WG does also technology specific work (for instance,
CCAMP WG deals with GMPLS extensions for G.709 and Sonet/SDH)
- Conclusion: don't specify what the model is but what has to
be done
Bert Wijnen:
-----------
Hour glass model was/is a guideline for the work, a structure of
the effort to be delivered by the area
Vach Kompella:
-------------
TE efforts are related to the routing area, but everything (ie
any working group) is not necessarily self contained within
a single area
Alex Zinin: future directions:
----------
Proposal: where to go from now
- IPO WG: done ? => Internet area
- GSMP WG: done ? => which area ?
- TE WG: done ? => OPS area
- MPLS WG: how much done ? => RTG area
- CCAMP WG: new work ? => RTG area
- PPVPN WG: Internet area ? Transport area ?
===========================================================
3. open discussion for all - 30 Mins
Paul Hoffman:
-----------
Qestions about the consistence of the move of the PPVPN
WG and its relationship with the PWE3 WG
Scott Bradner:
-------------
Explains the reason why PWE3 is in the TSV area, arguments
concerning the location and the definition of the PWE3 framework
Alex Zinin:
----------
MPLS and CCAMP working groups to be moved into the rtg area:
since MPLS is related to internet routing and GMPLS is an
extension (or more precisely a super set of MPLS), mentions
the relationship of some of the CCAMP WG i-d for a last call
through the routing area consent
Joe Touch:
---------
The same should also apply to the PPVPN working group
understanding ? concerning the Layer 2 and its underying
model(s) also pointed the relationship with L2TP working
group that not be clarified - but seems to agree with
the proposal concerning the PPVPN move to the Internet
area
Marco Carugi:
------------
PPVPN concern: this group looks at vertical solution
and client looking at services, argues in favor of the
proposal to move the PPVPN WG to the TSV area
PPVPN uses MPLS (while the curent charter precludes the
development of any new protocol) - produce the current
requirements and ** solutions ** not only in the MPLS
sense but also in the IP sense it would make sense to
think about the routing area as well.
Looking into the future items to be covered, the most
relevant are interfaces, encapsulation issues, inter-
working, pseudo-wire interworking, etc. thus it would
make sense to move the PPVPN working to the TSV area
Alex Zinin:
----------
PPVPN WG in the routing area ? the reason is due to
the importance with respect to other working groups ?
Marco Carugi:
------------
Argued/proposed to increase the cooperation between
the different working groups
Yakov Rehkter:
-------------
Question about keeping SUB-IP are alive ? for those
working groups that are done, they are done...
.. what are the problems this (proposed new) model
tries to solve ?
Scott Bradner:
-------------
Believe there is a lot of interest in this work and
a long term permanence, staffed by the nomcom
Idea to try and deal with overlaps and coordination
and different part of this space, and the idea of
having a coordination doesn't seem to fly and needs
to grow in another area
Yakov Rehkter:
-------------
Do you try to kill the current efforts ?
Scott Bradner:
-------------
This doesn't help but also doesn't hurt
Yakov Rehkter:
-------------
Thus this is not a coordination problem ?
Scott Bradner:
-------------
This is not a coordination effort/problem but rather a
real additional effort to maintain its permanence...
But there are no real arguments to kill it or to keep
it alive
Ron Bonica:
----------
If the SUB-IP area shutdowns, i agree about the
proposed grouping of the MPLS WG and GMPLS (meaning
CCAMP WG) into the routing area
But wonders about the work concentrating with respect
to the other generic work
Joe Touch:
---------
Doesn't feel to be good to move PPVPN WG into to the
TSV area but instead into the Internet area ? with the
help of an associate AD that would be dedicated to
process the associated aspects
On the other side, concerning the wire aspects they
seem to be more adapted to the Internet area than
the transport world
Scott Bradner:
-------------
How to address then the question of tunneling ?
Try to help in achieving coordination between the
tunneling technologies,
Joe Touch: [i missed this one]
---------
Lou Berger:
----------
Previously organisation (unexptected) referring
to efforts that didn't fit in any area exactly but
crosses with others
Nice thing about the SUB-IP area cross the boundary
surprises when it happens but allows the work and
effort to what happens and thus a comeback would
bring to the previous situation
Scott Bradner:
-------------
Part of the driving forces where driven by the
MPLS and PPVPN working group efforts
Lou Berger:
----------
Doesn't think it is an organisational issue, but
rather related to personal issues from those that
do not want to add people to the IESG and an AD
per area
Here tries to solve an issue of the IESG make-up
through an organizational issue (appearance), and
probably if this split is accepted we will have to
come back to the SUB-IP area organisation
Scott Bradner:
-------------
Not related to personall problems, but agrees that
SUB-IP area make things and people very busy - while
Scott already busy with the Transport area -
Lou Berger:
----------
Doesn't understand the selection of the existing area
Try to solve the type of work we do and not who is doing
what, this seems to be much more useful from his point
of view
Kireeti Kompella:
----------------
Difficult to find grouping of these areas, for instance
IPO wg, what does it bring "ip over optical" ? but this
WG rather speaks about modeling aspects, carrier req's,
etc. but not really about IP-over-foo
Scott Bradner:
-------------
Thus where should IPO WG go ?
Kireeti Kompella:
----------------
Difficutly to find a clear response, but the routing area
seems possible for each of them; in any case MPLS and the
CCAMP WG to be positioned within the routing area
Scott Bradner:
-------------
TE WG came from the OPS area
Bert Wijnen:
-----------
But their scope has changed from back then (when it was supposed
to document current practices and approaches).
Kireeti Kompella:
----------------
Agrees, pointing then the need for a dedicated area
Harald Alvestrand:
-----------------
Something like a directorate ?
Bert Wijnen:
-----------
The directorate has helped a lot in the early days, but
this SUB-IP area directorate is used less and less.
Lot's of interaction w/ routeing area and others
outside (bodies) and thus has ultimately led to
less use of the SUB-IP area directorate
On the other side, the area responsible AD's can
build any specific directorates if needed.
Harald Alvestrand:
-----------------
Most of the working groups of the IETF do no fit
exactly in one area thus nothing new here, we need
to make sure that we discuss together b/w technologies
that needs to be discussed together and that further
generates to put them in an area
Paul Hoffman:
-----------
Another part time job ? and probably the need for
new AD's and the relationship with the nomcom also
in relationship with the current nomcom process
Scott Bradner:
-------------
Concerning the nomcom it is too late for expecting
two additional slots for this year
Avri Doria (as nomcom chair):
----------------------------
IESG too large ? with two additional people ? it was
a part time ad now a full time ad and there is a
commonlatity of the focus of the area
Commonality of the working groups, the directorate
helps in focus
Kireeti Kompella:
----------------
If the working groups do not belong to a specific area
then just have working groups
Scott Bradner:
-------------
I once proposed to have only have three areas: general, security
and operational area - but it did not get any support
George Swallow:
--------------
Resistance and complement for their view of changes
lot's of synergies between the working groups but
points to the problems of the new ad's and the fact
they have to work together
Vach Kompella:
-------------
Doesn't think that two new AD's would help in speeding
the work up
Steve Throwbridge:
-----------------
As nomcom member, difficult to know how the SUB-IP
would behave over the time
Kireeti Kompella: [i missed this one]
----------------
Scott Bradner:
-------------
1) how many in favor of splitting the work ? very few people
2) how many in favor of sub-ip ? seems to have much more
support from the attendees (vast majority)