** Preliminary minutes (subject to change) Minutes taken by Jian Luo Meeting Chair: Jamal Hadi Salim 1) Chair - Agenda *) Administrivia - Blue Sheets - Jabber & Minute scribes appointment - Agenda bashing 2) Chair - WG status * ForCES is READY! Anyone who was waiting for completion, please implement * 3 drafts {model, protocol, MIB} now sitting in RFC editor queue awaiting publication *Protocol Draft: - Concession made to IESG is to list a TML by name - SCTP TML is now mandatory to implement TML - other TMLs can still be defined - It means all 3 drafts in RFC editor queue will NOT be published until SCTP TML is complete * Next steps - interop in July - Will try to LC SCTP TML right after that depending on interop - we need to publish applicability draft with up to date info - we need to define a few basic LFBs and present in Stockholm 3)Kentaro Ogawa on behalf of Xin-ping Wang ***IETF FORCES & ITU-T iSCP - iSCP (independent Scalable Control Plane) will use ForCES protocol - iSCP is still in preliminary phase of definition - iSCP series of recommendation work were initiated in September 2008 at ITU-T Q20/SG13 meeting, which incude Scenarios, Requirements and Architecture. Based on questions from Joel Halpern and Jian Luo, there was confusion on the role of SFE, SCE in relation to ForCES and whether the use of ForCES is applicable to network level and/or NE level. Jian Luo seemed to think CCAMP is more appropriate for Network layer. 4) Evangelos Haleplidis ***Interop Discussion. - ForCES Interoperability test will be tentavily held on 20-21 July in the University of Patras (Rio,Greece). The material will be based on Model draft-17, Protocol draft-22 and SCTP-TML draft-02. - Evangelos presented the different test scenarios - Evangelos asked for participants to contact him and discuss any logistic concerns they may have 5) Kentaro Ogawa *** SCTP TML update - - Kentaro discussed some of the issues that were brought up since version 2 of TML was released. - There have been suggestions for a 4th channel reserved only for messages that are intended to bypass config messages (eg when a CE needs to teardown an association while a config is in progress) - The authors believe it will add a little more complexity and are therefore not in favor - The authors got feedback on the potential delay of DTLS/TLS/SCTP standardization delays - This means even if SCTP TML is complete, there will be delay in publication of 4 documents while waiting for completion of SCTP/D/TLS - For this reason SCTP TML will support IPsec only. 6) Jamal Hadi Salim Wrap-up and Adjourn