IETF-90 Routing Area Open Meeting
=================================

http://rtg.ietf.org 
ADs: Alia Atlas, Adrian Farrel

Scribe: Deborah Brungard and Jon Hardwick

Adrian opened. Reviewed slides in "The Routing Area Status". Reviewed "Note well", Routing Area wiki.
KARP is now closed. Thanks to Joel and Brian, and WG.The mailing list will remain open. The protocol work
will be done in the related working groups.


Administriva and Area Status
----------------------------
 
Slides in "The Routing Area Status".

ACTN BOF (Han)- Just had a BOF. Operators presented use cases. Need further work to narrow down scope,
attendance about 110 people.

BFD (Jeff) - Presented slide. BFD MIB drafts finally on way to RFC. Energetic discussion during BFD meeting
on new work, seamless BFD. Presentation on L2VPN BFD related features. Proxy BFD intersting case, perhaps
in MANET.

CCAMP (Lou) - Presented slide. Two sessions. 2 new RFCs. 6 WSON documents soon to be submitted for publication.
Updated by authors after last call and we requested review again, especially by implementors. Multiple work items.
Network assigned labels, variable bandwidth links, update to automesh, may be of interest to other groups (MPLS).

Forces (Adrian) - Presented slide. WG is substantially behind on its charter. 3 of 5 charter items moving towards
publication. Shooting to have Honolulu to be last meeting and close.
 
I2RS (Jeff) - Presented slide. Wrapping up process douments (architecture and problem statement). Use cases will
be consolidated to one summary document. Recommend other WGs do the same, use case docs are not of long term value
and should not be RFCs. Went through huge number of info models, what do we do in terms of presenting them? They
are complex and hard to speak to in meetings. Very low interaction in years of feedback in the meeting, but very
high number of people had read docs, so interest is high.  Next step is to create design teams. Hope to have some
prelim data files by next IETF. Need to recharter to show we can work on data models. IPSE draft presented.

IDR (Sue)- Presented slide. 3 RFCs done; two drafts are moving to RFC too (AIGP, enhanced route refresh) which have
substantial deployments. IDR believes in 2 implementations before sending things to standardization.  5 drafts are
up for WGLC; these will be staggered into 2 week periods.  Looking at next hop issues, RTC, BGP-LS, AS migration,
MPLS labels, flow specs, time stamps.

ISIS (Chris) - Didn't meet yet, will meet. Agenda is short updates on segment routing, and a draft on TRILL using
IS-IS to create multicast trees, SPFV discriminator, routing groups problem, two implementations interpret route
preferences differently.  Also draft on new YANG model.  2 drafts going to RFC, one IANA admin drafts consolidating
TLVS into a single one, the other is flooding scopes.

L2VPN (Nabil) - presented slide. 4 new RFCs. 4 drafts at IESG some require revision but are very close. Some very
old drafts to clear from the pipe, namely pim-snooping, etree solution, 4447bis. Hope for authors to progress after
this IETF. Trying to clear up VPLS stuff, well ahead on EVPN base solution, other EVPN drafts in pipe, full agenda in
Toronto as a result of EVPN.
Adrian - L2VPN had a quiet time, now stuff popping out quite fast.

L3VPN (Martin) - Presented slide. Attendance stable at ~80 people. More slot requests than time allowed. 1 new RFC,
5 WGLCs, 5 new documents to be adopted after this meeting. Have interacted efficiently with L2VPN and MPLS recently
to make sure agenda time not wasted by repeat presentations. A bit behind on milestones, but not too much. Welcome
more engagement on mVPN, valuable but a bit of a niche, encourage more to engage on that.
Adrian on that point, PIM wg should pay attention as that's where the issues are. Martin also mpls expertise needed.

MANET (Justin) - Presented slide. Eight new RFCs. One WGLC completed. Charter item to complete MANET protocol complete.
Multi-topology completed WGLC. Several new, icluding management overview.
Adrian - other groups may want to look at last item as overlap. OPS area is pushing back on how protocols are used and
how this type of network is managed.

MPLS (Loa) - Presented slide. Two wg sessions. Had a presentation on MPLS architectural principle. 8 new RFCs. 2 more
published this week.
No. of drafts in Editors Queue and in IESG review constant. Noted, worked with wg processes, some not done before.
Do early reviews, IPR polls,language/readability reviews. Done one English language review. Quite improved. Looking to
do more.

NVO3 (Benson) - Met this morning. Progressing Problem statement and framework. Plan to recharter by next IETF, will help
to concentrate more on protocols and solutions. Gap analysis document is being parked. Plan to have interim meeting to
help drive work.
Adrian - note - interim meetings - physical or virtual - encouraged.

OSPF (Acee) - Finishing up authentication - two drafts. Segment routing work is driving some new requirements. Looking at
carefully how to do for v2 and v3. v3 looking at some radical ways, next generation IGP. Very exciting. Also, looking at
mobility work and TTC work which Huawei is prototyping.
Adrian Farrel: do you mean OSPF v4?
Acee Lindem: No, we don't want to open up to everyone.

PCE (Adrian) - Presented slide. One chair not here, other one here, but left early. No new rfcs. Inter-domain P2MP
procedures in editor's queue. So clearing the decks, getting ready for new work.

PIM (Mike) - Good meeting. Couple of items, IGMP, security, mobility. Looking to recharter. May do more multicast.
Next meeting we will have a joint meeting with MBONED. 

PWE3 (Matthew) - Presented slide. Have not met yet. 3 RFCs since last IETF, 1 draft with RFC editor, 1 draft with
IESG. 2 last calls, did not get feedback on fast endpoint protection draft, would welcome comments from any reviewers.

Roll (Ines) - Met yesterday. Policy, main work for roll. Most drafts are expired, so only doing one. ROLL will close.
Adrian - finishing work and expecting this to be the last meeting of Roll.

RTGWG (Alvaro) - Presented slide. Met. Advanced multipath requirements, published (RFC 7226). Agenda on FRR. Also
new work-link state protocols SPF/Delay Algorithms.Had presentation on TIME which was also done in OPS area. Had
thought more discussion here than in ops area

SFC (Jim) - Presented slide. 2nd meeting. 200+ attendees. Alot of interest. Discussion on to do requirements or
not (split view). Seem to be converging on a single architecture document.Inital discussion on OAM framework.
Presentation on multi-vendor OpenDaylight. A pre-SFC encapsulation.

SIDR (Sandy) - Presented slide. Meets Friday. Publication requested for two drafts. SIDR had a lot of good review
from IDR on SIDR draft. Requested IDR attention to the bgpsec protocol. We expect energetic discussion that would
change something that is basic in the architecture and RFCs in deployment.

SPRING (John) - Presented slide. Ready to last call problem statement/use case docs. Goal to advance before Honolulu.
Not looking for new use cases. Only if drive new requrements. Revised architecture document promised soon. Hope WGLC
by Honolulu.
Adrian - the use of use cases to motivate requirements would be good for other wgs to look at too.

Improving work in the Routing Area
------------------------------------

Adrian presented slides. Identified a number of items. Hurting the Area: Authors, especially after WG adoption, seem
to slow down. Need to maintain energy. WG participants don't participate. WG Chairs don't manage (enough).
Hurting the ADs: all of the above. Also time consuming for ADs the lack of interest, energy. Because of the lack of
interest, we are reluctant to start new work.
What are we going to do about it? Directorate for reviews, wiki, tools, training, English language review team.
Encourage cross-WG review.
Will use charters to guide and prioritise work. Tune the work-split in the area.

Note - on wiki. You can edit it, please do.

Tools - encourage to use. On the wiki is information. Use your working group charters as a tool - update.
Moving towards new collaborative tools: SVN, Git. Don't worry about IPR, IETF is dealing with. Be sure though
to check in with an ID so have a baseline.

WG Chair Training - Started a program of training. Virtual meetings. e.g. some of the things I saw when I was a chair,
I see come up across the wgs, so it's good to share. On consensus, will be next topic. A new RFC on it - great on it.
Also people management and how to say no will be a topic. All on wiki.

Document review: Get quality earlier in the process. Will have a Routing Directorate member assigned to each doument
when considering for WG adoption. The same person will be assigned then for Last Call.

George Swallow: On WGLC review, don't look for same initial issues as when doing WGLC review.
Alia Atlas: Yes it will be a 2 cycle review.
Stuart Bryant: Should not make WGLC quality requirements to get doc adopted.
Alia: yes this is in wiki
Dan: in MPLS have a review team.
Alia: can continue to do that if want to do that.
George: the review before call for adoption is optional. But note, if not readable, than will not get adopted.
Alia: We are interested in volunteers. So please volunteer. When want to ask for WG adoption, than ask for QA
(Quality Assurance) reveiwer. Tell Deborah or Jon. If don't want a reviewer, than still tell, and will be recorded.
Can also ask for a reviewer not on the Directorate.
Lou: What will do for cross reviewer consistency?
Alia: Please contribute suggestions, can put that on the wiki on how to do.

Adrian: Tuning some Working Groups. Presented slides.

Kireeti: Question on VPLS?
Adrian: It is effectively PW enabled, so goes in LDP-enabled WG.
Lou: where is new encapsulations for say ethernet?
Adrian: if e.g. a new control word, than a corner case, need cross review.
Lou: So I wasn't sure where data plane stuff was?
stewart: Probably make sense to do data plane in LDP, but get reviewed by MPLS. PWE3 technically has IP in it's
charter.
Adrian: good point, cross review important.
Luyuan - Data center VPN. If using MPLS without BGP (only MPLS forwarding with central controller)?
Adrian - that's a new idea, but seems nvo3. If doing work that's cross referenced, make sure other wgs are reviewing
and authors.
Bension- Key piece here is active discussion, we will be discussing on mailing list these items.
Eric - two items on nvo3. is this IP based?
Alia - We're not doing charter now.
Adrian - On TEAS. We believe important as poor coordination between mpls and gmpls over the years. So see this is
important.
Adrian - ccamp will not do procedures, just extensions for technology specific.
Eric - BGP LS, where does it go?
Adrian - Didn't think about it yet.
stewart - Seemed you will need some other cross reviews - LDP and TE.
Adrian - Yes will need.
Greg- Does RSVP-TE include protection etc?
Adrian - LDP services group, all ACH applications.
Greg - Performance measurement - traffic engineering?
Adrian - Didn't think about.
Lou - Do you mean tunnel control vs. TE? e.g. Spring can do TE.
Adrian - Interesting point. But LDP folks would say LDP is a tunnel to. Need to think about it.
Lou - If CR LDP comes up again can think about. Where does ethernet control come up?
Adrian - Isn't it technology specific, so still ccamp.
Lou - What about PS for packetC?
Adrian - If specific technologies extensions than would go in ccamp.
Loa - I have one concern, seems we are builting in much more cross wg coordination than had before. Suggest
need tool work than to do so don't miss it. Also, you said ccamp and mpls didn't coordinate?
Adrian - I still say bloody awful.
Lou - We have several drafts, but it's more the participants vs. the chairs. If ADs said we should push these
anyway and let market decide, than you could of said it.
Loa - The coordination - it has been smooth, except where we get fully baked solutions. This will not solve that problem.
Adrian - It will not solve that problem.
Alia - The cross review we are talking about is business as usual. I've started a wiki page on possible mailing list for
cross: OAM, routing.
Loa - Fine. but I'm trying to say, the problem with MPLS RSVPTE and GMPLS RSVPTE is not addressed here. We don't do cross
reviews with vendors, we do it for wg drafts.
George - And there's stuff, FRR, is different for CCAMP than MPLS for good reason. More layer 2 so not sure why not there.
Russ - These are problems with vendors we are not going to solve here. We need to think the most logical way to lay out
vs. corner cases.
Fatai - Currently for GMPLS we go just to ccamp. But now we have to go to the new wg. Generic recovery? Path key? Generic
association? Now have to go to TEAS. Will cause some issues for CCAMP folks. Where define multi-layer?
Adrian - Intersting discussion. Multilayer is abstract, so will go to TEAS.
Adrian - On PCE may split later, for now will keep architecture together with pce work.
Oscar - PCEP exchanging TE, will go to TEAS or PCE?
Adrian - If pcep is used for foo, where to put the work? PCE.
Lou - Where's architecture work going to be done?
Alia - We will leave PCE alone for now. As concerns TEAS getting to large.
Adrian - Not sure how much more work really for PCE on that.

Adrian presented time line - by IETF-91, new working groups will meet.

Eric O - Will the wgs that change - what will happen to wg chairs? e.g. mpls?
Adrian - as of now - just doing the wg list. Having the list - we will start looking at the chairs. we're not
doing the movement though to keep chairs, looking for best chairs.
Loa - you say things go on as before. Question where do we take the discussion for wg charters? Rechartering is
driven by WG chairs and consensus in WG. How will do it for this? Need a forum to discuss.
Adrian - I haven't thought about it. Maybe routing discuss list.
Loa - one idea - may start by scoping this discussion to the wg lists.
Alia - thats a good idea
Thomas- I welcome the effort to try and change. I'm concerned it becomes a restructure or big thing vs. just changing.
what has to change. it's important to make changes that can explain to the community on why and how will evaluate
If change was successful.Looking at slide on what's hurting. What you are proposing doesn't improve any of this.
Alia - Authors losing interest - this is why we are looking at change to improve.
Thomas - The reason people don't participate, a number of root causes. Doesn't help to move to different wgs. Don't see
need any change, can do individual things.
Alia - We started with this by looking at individual items. We are only tuning a little bit. What is affected, some groups
are going to be smaller.
Adrian - we are not going to get to full traceability on this, just our thinking.
Thomas - So the wgs not being changed, pull off the slides. I made the mistake of raising metrics at a previous meeting.
The goal of metrics is measure. But need to know what to measure to be useful and optimize.
Alia - I look forward to hearing the suggestions on metrics.
Thomas - Suggest you can change quickly what you have good feedback on/can justify, but where concerns, you should go 
slower.
It will be more difficult than you think for IESG and IAB review.
Loa - Two minor things. If going to update slides, example LDP applications, in the MPLS bullet, have cross review for
other groups.
Say also, for other wgs to cross-review, so we can start charter changes. And if nvo3 is a data center wg, than should
call it, as nvo3 sounds like a world thing.
Adrian - It's difficult to rename a wg. We know that.


AOB
---

Closed the SCALE mailing list.
NomCom - soon requesting nominations, think hard on who you would like for new AD.


Open Discussion
---------------
Lou - No humms?
Adrian - those who think we need more hums - hum now.
Lou - I was thinking to get the feeling from the room on how felt about the changes, but that's your call.
Adrian and Alia: Inappropriate as not all the area is represented here and further tuning will need to be
done to this proposal anyway.
If any substantial concerns not addressed, interested in hearing.