IETF 56 - CCAMP

Kireeti: WG status
------------------

Short overview on status of WG documents as listed on web page.

Questions:
- framework for sonet/sdh control draft ready for LC? -> unclear
- LMP MIB to Last Call?
  Bert asked for checkup
  Authors will provide new version and then last call on mailing list
- non-standard sonet/sdh extensions? -> no interest in room
  Bert Wijnen: There is still no document describing what exactly is 
signaled. If that is not provided, this draft should go to wastebin.
  **no referenced document**


Wesam Alanqar: ITU liaison report
---------------------------------

ITU-T SG15 update to ccamp. This presentation has also been sent to the 
mailing list.
3 liaison statements exist: ason routing, discovery, 
restoration/re-routing.

IETF routing experts are invited to come to next ITU meeting.


Dimitri Papadimitriou: Ext. in support of end-to-end GMPLS-based 
recovery

----------------------------------------
---------------------------------


draft-lang-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-e2e-signaling-00

After 1 year of work: terminology starts to be widely adopted, analysis i-d 
still too largely scoped.
Still needs to be covered: bulk lsp recovery, reversion (switch back)

Next steps:
next report April 03, func spec ready for LC
Functional spec to be ready for LC *in April'03*
protocol spec expected to be ready in July 03

Should the terminology doc become PS?
- AD will check whether it should be informational or PS


Peter Czezowski: recovery requirements, fault notification protocol and LMP

----------------------------------------
------------------------------------

Presenting 3 drafts and changes to them:
- 
draft-czezowski-optical-recovery-reqs-01.txt
- 
draft-rabbat-fault-notification-protocol-02.txt
- 
draft-soumiya-lmp-fault-notification-ext-00.txt

The first 2 drafts believed to be ready. There is running code for the 
third draft, but is there any interest?
Comments are requested from mailing list.

George: Changing pt-to-pt protocol to a flooding protocol is more than just 
adding a message. It results in a different implementation model for LMP.
Kireeti: Don't start by modifying LMP, first look into problem and 
requirements. Need mailing list discussion whether LMP is right.
Alex: It took several net meltdowns to learn how to do flooding right.


Dimitri: draft-lang-ccamp-lmp-bootstrap-03

------------------------------------------

Changes: modified J0/J1/J2-16 string to fit within 80 bits, added layer 
adjacency discovery
Next steps: believes all technical issues raised on the mailing list 
solved, accept as wg doc?

Is this a worthwhile LMP extension (apart from questions about format 
details)?

Kireeti: needs discussion on list
Jonathan Sadler: mechanism worthwhile, encoding still has problems
Dimitri: suggest to create document with common bootstrap mechanism, then 
sonet/sdh specific doc, where sonet/sdh encoding specifics would be
specified
Jonathan Lang: is feature desired by community? find out before 
splitting docs and put more work in it

Question to room: ~7 think it's useful, nobody against -> take to list


George: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-overlay-01

-----------------------------------------

Question to room: "ready for WG LC?":
~20 yes, 0 no
-> check consensus on list
-> start WG last call after meeting


Dimitri: technology specific routing extensions to GMPLS routing

----------------------------------------
------------------------


draft-mannie-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-{ospf,isis}

Changes: discussion concerning bandwidth encoding, section on 
scalability and backward compatibility consideration.

Falls within Sonet/SDH basket. Some assertions have been made on list, 
addressed one-by-one in the presentation.

Jonathan Sadler: need discussion on list instead of rhetorical 
questions here

A layering discussion ensued.

Kireeti: need layer relationship document (refering to the mrn i-d)

Poll of the room: ~15 think it's a useful idea, ~5 against making it wg doc
Kireeti: reasonable support, take to list


Adrian Farrel: GMPLS MIBs
-------------------------

3 drafts became WG drafts in June 02, nothing happened since.
Waiting for MPLS MIBS to go to LC before republishing GMPLS MIBs.
Plan:
  wait for MPLS MIBs republication and LC
  quick editorial respin to bring in line (~4 weeks after MPLS MIBs)
  content additions, republish before Vienna
  chairs would like LC in August (but need WG feedback)


Adrian: 
draft-lee-ccamp-rsvp-te-exclude-route-01

------------------------------------------------

Why in gmpls?
  think is ccamp charter item, increasing interest 
(inter-AS/area), is mpls extension but is generalized and should be part of 
GMPLS
Why needed?
  needed where path computation is not only in one place
Changes:
  identification of new work items
Actions:
  got useful feedback
  solicit input from providers
  look for convergence with JP's draft
  WG item?

George: should talk about it in sub-ip directorate meeting

Questions to room:
~15 have read the draft
~20 find it useful
~30 think it should become wg doc in some wg
0 find it not ready


Osama Aboul-Magd: a transport view to LMP

-----------------------------------------


draft-aboulmagd-ccamp-transport-lmp-00.txt

Kireeti: What does control plane discovery mean?
         Is LMP + LMP bootstrap close enough to what this draft does?
	 Very useful spec, provides "language translation".

Malcolm Betts: progress this draft before LMP bootstrap draft


Ron Bonica: generic tunnel tracing
----------------------------------

Requirements doc is stable, WG LC complete.
Time to work on solution, IANA has assigned UDP port, new context object 
added.

Solicit feedback from implementers.
Adopt as ccamp work item?

Room poll: ~10 have read the draft -> need to take to list


Ron (for Loa): MPLS and GMPLS change process

--------------------------------------------

Status: lots of lively discussion, topics:
- is this merely a reaffirmation of IETF process?
- what is the role of a liaison?
- when all approvals are not obtained? Is there any alternative to the dust 
bin?

Don Fedyk: need better understanding, common model/language

Monique Morrow: ITU/IETF need to work together

Jerry Ash: document describing liaisons?

Kireeti: there already is such as doc (may be insufficient), separate from 
this

Bert: liaison process is wider issue (not specific to this WG)

Malcolm Betts: draft fine for IP applications, how about non-IP apps? How 
can get those requirements recognized in IETF?

Ron: requirements must be stated clearly to be understood by IETF WG

Kireeti: Draft documents how ietf process works.
	 The process may need a dust bin for bad ideas and another bin for "not in 
IETF scope, but not really broken".
	 It is not addressed yet how to handle stuff the IETF doesn't like.

Alex: Need interest by IETF community to make things happen, same thing 
applicable to anyone coming to IETF.
      People need to be convinced.

Bert: subip area initially had problem with too many drafts, was fixed by 
requiring problem statements

Marten: Process is very mature dealing with submissions by 
individuals, but not from other organizations.
	I-Ds not suited to deal with peer standardization organization.
	ITU can't do ascii diagrams or read through mailing list to gather IETF 
opinion.
	Need a way to apply IETF protocols to non-IETF problem.

Kireeti: GMPLS work did step out of traditional ietf scope

George: coopeation would work a lot better if clear requirements would be 
communicated instead of sending in solutions
	(even applies within IETF)

Sharam Davari: another standardization organization should not have same 
weight as an individual submission

Ron: I-D should be evaluated on its merit, author irrelevant


Kireeti: ccamp charter update
-----------------------------

- not done by WG consensus
- proposed by chairs to AD, AD takes it to IESG/IAB

Alex: correction: WG consensus *is* required but is not enough

under consideration:
- inter-area signaling and routing of generalized paths
   - crackback wrt inter-area
- inter-as on hold until tewg produces requirements
- explicitely put tunnel tracing in charter
- routing extensions for Sonet/SDH
- signaling for G.709 signaling
- further LMP extensions
- optical vpn *not* in charter

milestones:
- GMPLS MIB to WG LC in Aug 03
- protection/restoration functional spec and protocol changes to WG LC by 
Apr and Jul 03 (respectively)
- tunnel tracing protocol to WG LC by Sep 03
- set milestones for inter-area path setup when ratified as charter 
changes

need active discussion on list

JP: combination of inter-area and inter-as is a good idea

Kireeti: it is great if a common solution is available, but that is not 
reason enough to put inter-as on charter

Marco: O-VPN started in ITU-T, on ppvpn charter, good chance for 
cooperation

Kireeti: ccamp should keep an eye on solution