Agenda bashing chairs, 5 min WG Status chairs, 15 min Adrian: p2mp-te-mib received a MIB Doctor review. We addressed most of the points. Comments raised again during IESG review and blocking discuss currently. George (on draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-mapping): One comment pending (MUST Vs. SHOULD). Will be tackled as part of WG LC. Nurit: what is mini-bof on rsvp? Loa: interest to continue work on rsvp. draft-leymann-mpls-seamless-mpls-01 Thomas Beckhaus, 10 min Nurit: one mpls domain? one IGP domain? Thomas: one mpls domain from access to access Nurit: understand motivation, but not sure 'domain' is good term draft-rekhter-pim-sm-over-mldp-01 Rahul, 10 min no comments draft-chen-mpls-return-path-specified-lsp-ping-02 Mach, 10 min [no-name]: how can we get the Tunnel ID? Mach: if use rsvpt-te, the Tunnel ID is carried, the ingress should thus know it. Tom: how is this different from RFC 4379, except for bfd section? Tom: I do not think we want to modify the bfd bootstrapping procedure Loa: how many read? - fair number Loa: how many think ready for wg document? - take it to the list draft-kini-mpls-fast-lsp-alert-00 Autumn, 10 min Greg Minsky: you say you change TTL handling. Not backward compatible. How plan to address this non backward compatibility? Autumn: we need all nodes to upgrade Tom: why can you do this with existing lsp-ping? George: listing some use cases would be useful Autumn: in next draft (draft-kini-mpls-ring-frr-facility-backup-00) Tom: this problem is solved with multicast extensions to ping. draft-kini-mpls-ring-frr-facility-backup-00 Autumn, 10 min George: confused. seems to overlap with stuff in ccamp and with work on mpls-tp Rahul: How does it compare to 1:1 detour of rfc 4090 Atumn: we do not compare Rahul: should do the comparison draft-jin-mpls-mldp-leaf-discovery-00 Lizhong Jin, 10 min Rahul: what are procedures for root to inform leaf about aggregations/mappings? Rahul: let me try again. what are you trying to solve? Lizhong: See slide in appendix Rahul: let's take it offline draft-dunbar-so-mpls-detect-impair-mplsping-01 Linda Dunbar, 10 min Nurit: why need to do it at mpls level? Do you envisage mpls in microwave? I agree with problem, but doubtful of mpls in microwave Eric Gray: hope end-to-end is not handset-to-handset. You might want to take that work in CCAMP Linda: not really a control issue Eric: we want to overload ping Ning: if microwave is taken out of the picture, this remains valid Eric: yes but then sensitivity to weather becomes moot Tom: IPPM could do that [no-name]: you could reserve bandwidth Philippe: we want to select best path draft-chen-mpls-bfd-enhancement-01 Ning, 10 min Loa: reason for this draft being here is that BFD WG is not meeting this time, we will try to come to agreement on that document. draft-ali-mpls-sig-pid-multiplexing-case-03 Zafar, 5 min Request to adopt as WG doc George: how many read? - Very few. George: Please read the draft and give opinion on the list draft-yong-pwe3-enhance-ecmp-lfat-01 Lucy, 5 min Questions sent to PWE3 WG. draft-zhao-ldp-multi-topology-extension-00 Quintin Zhao, 5 min George: do you have customers that need it? It seems complicated. Quintin: mpls is growing in multiple dimensions. We are looking to new application scenarios. George: demands for this would be clarified. ****** session closed ****** MPLS-TP Project Status WG Chairs, 15 min Nurit: Is Linear targeted for Dec 2011? Loa: not rfc but ITU need Nurit: need to change the phrasing Italo: ITU did not say this is what we want, but this is what would be required Malcolm: list of dependencies between drafts and Recs is posted on mpls-tp wiki page. Please keep me informed so that it is kept updated Loa: I agree draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-10 Matthew, 10 min no comments draft-fang-mpls-tp-security-framework-01 Luyuan, 7 min Italo: I think that TCM construct solves security issues at MEP/MIPs Luyan: any specific document on security at ITU? We search, did not find them. Italo: unsure but we can talk about it. Kam: there can be SS-PWs as well Luyan: yes Kam: I doubt about making CP physically separated Luyan: we do not say more than requirements document Yaakov S: need to look at more specific attack mechanisms Julien: I like your approach, interesting but how is this specific to mpls-tp? Luyan: in mpl we do not have the mip/mep concept draft-abfb-mpls-tp-control-plane-framework-02 Lou, 10 min Adrian: could you clarify that GMPLS protection is like FRR and end-to-end protection is like hot standby Lou: yes for the first, unsure for the second. Please note that there is a survivability doc draft-ietf-mpls-tp-fault-01 George, 10 min Shannon: are messages sent periodically or once? George: same as for AIS Italo (clarification): how you do LDI? George: currently in the draft with different opCode, but same semantics than AIS. Italo: ok for LDI in case of low rate CC, bit in AIS would be nicer Jia: Is this APS or AIS? You seem to link the two. George: True, but this is optional [no-name]: Is this an implementation issue that you are trying to solve? George: no sure to understand [no-name]: restates the question George: this is a business issue Linda: is it a MIP or a MEP that sends AIS? George: comes from server MEP draft-ietf-mpls-tp-linear-protection-01 Yaacov, 5 min [no-name]: relation of this draft and ITU G.xxx? Why do you duplicate existing documents? Yaacov: for the same reason than for other T-MPLS documents Loa: we are technically revising them but they are still in effect Italo: believe there are open issues with this document, we are willing to find solution with authors Nurit: we are open to comments, please provide them. draft-weingarten-mpls-tp-ring-protection-02 Yaacov, 10 min Alessandro: has this draft taken into account operators commands or is it only based on oam? Yaacov: it does Alessandro: did not find anything in doc Yaacov: because defined in linear protection Alessandro: your optimal solution may not be optimal in terms of carrier expectations Loa: please send this comment on the list Alessandro: already did. draft-umansky-mpls-tp-ring-protection-switching-02 Italo, 10 min Nurit: on wrapping slide: per LSP? Italo: yes in the draft currently, but could evolve Nurit: You do not meet the requirements Stewart (as self): Try to understand the diff with other draft. Your draft dynamically creates the backup path while in the other draft it is already created Italo: yes partially but APS is fast. Stewart: but if failure traffic goes nowhere until dynamic creation is finished. Italo: yes draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-framework-05 Italo, 10 min no comments draft-koike-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-maintenance-points-01 Yoshinori, 5 min Nurit: would like to thank NTT for such useful document, I would encourage you to publish as informational document, including scenarios. Yuji: For MEP, TCM consideration is required. And I cannot tell such a kind of the categorization of MEP is required while MIP may be OK draft-asm-mpls-tp-bfd-cc-cv-02 Annamaria, 10 min BFD for MPLS-TP Rahul, 10 min Gerg: I like first presenter approach Italo: all this seems very complicated Tom: I like second presenter approach draft-nitinb-mpls-tp-lsp-ping-extensions-01 Nitin, 10 min Italo: Using FEC has some implications, still need to work on this draft-nitinb-mpls-tp-lsp-ping-bfd-procedures-02 Nitin, 10 min no comments ****** session closed ****** *** The drafts below were presented during the PWE3 WG session *** *** On Friday, March 26, 2010 9:00 - 11:30 *** *** Please see PWE3 WG minutes for further information *** draft-boutros-mpls-tp-loopback-03 George, 10 min draft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers-01 George, 5 min draft-ietf-pwe3-static-pw-status-00 Matthew, 10 min draft-cheung-mpls-tp-mesh-protection-00 Taesik Cheung, 5 min draft-bao-mpls-tp-path-transfer-reqs-00 Yuanlin Bao, 5 min draft-fuxh-mpls-tp-transfer-framework-00 Yuanlin Bao, 5 min