Open OPSAREA meeting minutes 2009-11-12, Hiroshima, Japan (based on notes taken by Wes Hardaker and Balazs Lengyel) ADSLMIB: - No presenter - Dan R as AD:Almost done, last doc in WGLC. I am considering shutting them down and deferring further new work to OPSAWG. BMWG: - Not many people could come. Interim on 10/30 with more than 21 participants. - MPLS benchmark draft has been approved - Datapoint convergence draft revised, publication request - IPSEC drafts in IESG review, good discussion - Data center bridging discussions ongoing - Flow control on Ethernet discussion going on, IEEE liason Eric Gray - Content ... Ongoing Dan R. good WG, ADs satisfied. Benchmarking subip technologies needs coordination with IEEE. - No WG meeting in Hiroshima, as many people could not come. Also conflicts with ITU-T meeting. ???: We are doing work on high layers of the stack and in subip layer. Work on high layers is non-trivial. - Do we have the competence? Work is really needed! Hard problem. Dan: Coordination within IEEE needed, BMWG is used to that. CAPWAP: Margaret Wasserman co-chair: finished 2 MIBs. IESG proposed publication. Informational status as not enough review. - No meeting as no document on agenda. - Will shutdown after these documents. Bert W.: Access points here at IETF actually used CAPWAP. Any confirmation? margaret: I also heard it. Joel: Yes it is true, but unintentional. Margaret: Any problems? Joel: Earlier we hd problems, but now its fine. Dan R. Good news Christopher: Earlier problems were more IPv6 not CAPWAP Joel: Problem was with scalability. Too many users (1000) Margaret: CAPWAP is widely implemented. Is this multi-or single vendor Joel: Single vendor, Cisco Dan R. We have at least 2 code bases. Margaret: 4 code bases DIME: Hannes: In works and in progress - Basic protocol revision - Mobility spec - Client IPv6 AAA interaction - MIBS Routing extension near finishing Ongoing/new - HOkey stuff - NAT issues - Mobility - Localized routing - QOS issue - GSMAssoc issues - DNS usage mechanism DNSOP: - 2 existing items discussed - 3 new drafts discussed - lots of new work adopted and continuing work going on GROW: Ron B. Chairs not here Substitute chair. - BGP graceful shutdown, down prioritize routes to go away - FID aggregation - Virtual aggregation, at the edge route no full routes, just a route to the center of network - Many drafts, reverse rpf does not work IPFIX: Benoit:2 new rfcs file format and exporting ... - IPFIX psamp config is done, but YANG dependency - New: mediation is new work. Problem statement almost done, data framework good start - mediation protocol an individual draft. - New: flow selection draft, flow anonimization draft. - ipfix MIB work is almost done. One more version and that should be it - ipfix/psamp config work is about done, but depends on yang MBONED: Ron (channeling chairs): 4 drafts - revisit of one draft needed - Trial, muticast tool, mtrace tool, session announcement request - Earlier we advertised, broadcast multicast sessions, it turned out muticast - sessions are rather advertised on the web, so we need to decide if this broadcase is needed at all. NETCONF: Mehmet: Only one authors could come. Webex problems. Audio and jabber worked better. - partial-lock in RFC Editor queue - monitoring need updates and work - with-defautls: some issues - 4741bis: ongoing - 4742bis - WG is in favor of doing the work. Charter update not needed only milestone updates. Margaret will edit. - Robust config non-chartered item will be updated - We need YANG for the monitoring draft NETMOD: David P.: We were supposed to be done. Things looked good, but then lot of new debate. - Did not result in real big changes. - We think we are nearly done. - WGLC on primary YANG draft. - Other docs dependent on the primary. Dan R.: Did you consider what after the initial drafts/rfc David P. Not yet Dan R: Will there be enough tools and guidelines available? David P.: There are people already using YANG. Wes H: Interoperability? David P: NO info David P.: Guidelines doc is started. Needs more review. Dan R. Interoperability is an issue. David : An interoperability event is planned, but unknown status. Juergen Sch. plans an opensource tools, no info on status. Is anyone interested in an interop even? Dan R. ANy help from IETF needed? David: At least colocation. David. Many authors could not be there. Problem with Hiroshima. Discuss if this is a general problem. OPSAWG: Only one chair present - Chris 5 rfcs published 2 open issues. Number of new individual drafts, none as yet accepted as WG drafts yet. Dan R. Important rfcs: Syslog, OAM review guidelines OPSEC: Joel: No Hiroshima meeting. Source/destination blackhole filtering became RFC. 3 docs ongoing ICMP filtering ... routing prot crypto issues. Last call soon coming - A few documents will be going to LC shortly PMOL Dan R. standing for chairs: 2 docs on charter - framework, SIP performance params - framework new editor, good progress, doc will be taken out from WG - SIP perf. WGLC done, IESG review, got many comments from RAI - might become a directorate of a never ending WG, might finish with a guideline document. Decision is needed sometime. RADEXT: No meeting in Hiroshima. They should have sent at least a status mail. V6OPS: Fred B.: 4 drafts - CPE router draft: home GWs today dont support IPv6. - Cablelabs, cisco - draft split in two Dan: How does this relate to home gateway? Fred. Related phase 2 might be a homegateway if you want - Other 2 drafts zbout firewall security: simple security will progress fast, - other more complex firewall, more work might go into other security WG, e.g. OPSSEC. - Transition technologies. Operators are working on it. 4 drafts about transition models. - Typical problem, how do we deal with operational problems. DAN. OPSDIR lunch will happen. Openarea office hours. Open Mike: Ron B. DNSOPS needs new chair. DNSSEC is the main topic. Operators are preferred. Dan R.: This week too few participants. Location and economics are a problem. I still think face-to-face important. Wes H. I work in multiple ares, DNS, OPS, SEC, this is a problem for OPSAREA, not so much for DNS area. Sec area is also well represented. Other areas the numbers are actually up. Ron B. Some face-2-face is needed. In the OPS parts of the OPS area we have a problem. Operators don?t come. Money, not enough value. For some groups virtual meeting needed. Smaller operators may come to virtual meetings. David P. We should see each other. I believe in face-2-face. We agree more easily on issue. Complementing that is needed. So both are needed, but face-2-face is definitely. Other areas will need the YANG experts on the spot Dave H.: Syslog has opensource developers, who don?t have money to come. We had no meeting Dan.R Do you need a meeting? Dave H. No meeting needed. Mail is enough. - WG reports in this format is not useful. - WG chair should write a 5 line report and post that. - We might not need this session. Ron B. : Agree written reports look good. Dan R.: There is a difference between written reports and personal reports are different. We could try the virtual formats as well. Maybe alternating every 2nd IETF. Dave H. I would like to keep OPSWG and OPSAREA meetings separate. Dan.R All OPSAWG all presentation this time had a draft behind them. Ron B. A common meeting OPSWG and OPSAREA. Dave H. I think it might help if we tried to drive some discussion in the OPS area. I am beginning to question what the OPS area is doing in the IETF now. Operators don't come to the IETF meetings very often. As we move to the multi-protocol NM model, lots of OAM work is being done elsewhere in the IETF. If we don't do operations, and management moves elsewhere, I am not sure what the O&M area is for. Dan R. We are getting some key pieces like YANG, YANG guidelines, 57xx will help channel discussions. Dave H. Dave H: The OPSAREA session could identify an issue that should be discussed. For example, what does the community want to do about this emerging multi-protocol management approach? We should get some debate going. Right now, there is no discussion going on. Dan R: Discussion has been limited because we needed to get some pieces into place. Now that we have RFC5706 Guidelines, and YANG and the YANG architecture moving forward, we are in a better position to discuss multi-protocol management. This type of discussion is value that the OPS area can bring to the IETF. The OPSAWG WG has started to work on these directions; we still have work to do. Dave H: I think there are a few important issues we should be discussing, probably in the OPS open area meeting. The OPSAWG WG is defining how protocols should work together, such as syslog and SNMP. But this work is being done piecemeal without any framework or real plan about where we are going with this. YANG is about to be submitted for standards track. I think we need a discussion of whether we want to start encouraging other WGs to develop YANG models or not. I haven't seen that discussion except in the Netconf and Netmod WGs, where there is not surprisingly some bias on that question. We need to have some of those discussions and they are not being driven in the OPS area. My company is becoming concerned about the (lack of) relevance of the work going on in the OPS area. Chistopher: Operators don?t have budget to come here. We need to get operators on board. We often just read from slides. There is no real value here. Real value is discussion often in hallways. OPSWG a focus group for new work that does not have an IETF home. That is value. We should encourage that. - We had conflicting drafts Ron B. The conflicting drafts are typical candidate for a virtual meeting. Brian C. 2 conflicting drafts is not just an OPSAREA issue. Chris: If we agree in the OPSAREA that?s a start Joel: meetings enforce a deadline. If we use virtual meetings starting up new WG is difficult. - Virtual BOFs are difficult. - Dealing with many timezones for many interim meetings is difficult. - Concentrating them in one week and one timezone is good advantage of real meetings. David P.: This should be debated on the plenary. Powerpoint is the death of the IETF it kills debate. - Turn off WLAN. It might increase the DIALOG. People are not concentrating. - Increase dialog in meeting. Ron B. Agree. I didn't bring my laptop. David P. People are sitting in the WG and reading email. Joel - A virtual whiteboard is possible. A laptop is needed for the remote participation. - Webex voice was bad, rethink. David P.: There are reasons for WLAN, but still we have the problem. Benoit: face2face is important. Knowing people is important, corridor discussions are important. Starting new ideas without face2face is difficult. - Broad definition of ideas face2face is easier. IPFIX: if only the WG meeting is considered that would be a let down, but the full meeting is nice,. - We had good virtual meetings as well. Finishing the work virtuall is good. Starting a work on virtual is difficult. - Tutorials virtually is good. - Ask operators if they are interested in virtual meetings. Ron B.: Some types of meetings are good face2face some in better in virtual. Dan R. would it help if we tried to organize a virtual open opsarea meeting? Ron B. Need good preplanned content. Chris: face2face important, but operators are also needed. Dont have too many meetings. - On Laptops: If somebody is only reading the slide I tune out. - If people are bored the presenters fault not the WLANs prolem. Dan R. Don?t be drastical. The problem is not the too many passive people. The problem is that the active people are not here. Dave H.: Slides are needed for people who have difficulties with English Warren: Participation is a problem because operators are focused on problems now. IETF is focused on problems in the 3 years from now. Wes H. In the early days we did not have laptops/WLAN. Earlier peole were just sleeping, only one in 10 participated. - People would just start chatting if we don?t have laptops. Stephen M.: If the discussion gets to detailed people tune out. Chairmans need to be more acive. Crowd and flow control needed. Warren: Some laptops are used for writing notes not just email. Balazs L. Getting involved in this work without face2face meetings would be difficult. Dave H. The chairs should be able to disable the WLAN as they want. Brian C. Some WLAN usage might be really needed during the meeting. Jabbering to toher groups, fetching drafts. Wes: the real problem is to engage people. I also go to meetings which I understand only marginally. Christopher: Printing was important earlier, used to be 200 ksheets it?s a waste of paper.