********************************************************************** IETF 93 PALS - Thursday, July 23, 2015 - 17:40-19:10 Athens/Barcelona (80/90 min allocated; ** Please note the slot placement may be adjusted.) ********************************************************************** Chairs: Stewart Bryant and Andy Malis Secretary: David Sinicrope (x = slide sets NOT received as of July 20, 2015 14:00 CET) 1. 15 min - Agenda bash, WG Agenda and Status - Andy MALIS and Stewart BRYANT See Chairs slides. Note: Pink box not used for this meeting since no video transmitting since network is down. Authors are strongly encouraged to: - send comments to the Chairs on the milestones. - respond to AUTH48 comments Many drafts in the AD's queue. pwe3-congcons-02 - three authors and all busy. Need overlap of time. 2/3 authors met. Last author provided feedback. Authors have what they need to complete doc and will do in the next weeks. Himanshu: why are we doing this draft? YJS: 1. first drafts must finish 2. < censored > There are some comments on rfc4447-bis, still in LC during meeting will complete on Aug 17 2. 10 min - RFC 4447 bis - Luca Martini http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pals-rfc4447bis Objective: explain resolution of last call comments and give status (No slides) Luca led discussion. Some comments mostly from Stewart and one more from Eric Rosen. Stewarts are mostly editorial (e.g. dealing with capitalization) and one comment on control word being preferred or not preferred. RFC4447bis is just to get the document to STD so don't want to change terminology. If clash with RFC2119, then can take off capitals. Small comment on cbit notification. a bug in vendor code that sends notification with FEC but no cbit in FEC so comes out different PW. RFC7358 tells what modes to use. Text here changed to be compliant. All Erratas integrated as well as RFC on cbit negotiation procedures. RFC6723 obsolut 4447, 6723 are obsoleted by this new RFC Himanshu: since obsoeting 4447, there is an rfc that says what to do with label request. Luca: I will get to that. RFC4447 - of 5036 full implementation required. No part will do. Not going to copy 5036. Andy: If you have a specific change to the doc, please send change to the list. Luca: just an update to an exisitng RFC so not trying to boil the ocean. No other comments. Stewart: volunteers to review: Mach, Himanshu, Yakov Stewart: RFC documented implementation with or without CW. Deborah: On shepard writeup add that WG chose to use preferred/not preferred. 3 10 min - PW to PSN Tunnel Binding - Mach CHEN http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-pw-over-bidir-lsp Objective: Target to WG Last Call. Ping Pan is removed - special ack was added. Document has a long way to go. Author is not in a positionto comment. No clear IPR process - once someone is on the doc as author then author tells chairs whether they have influenced the doc requiring disclosure. Others can do this. For AUTH48 - is not a problem. Ping wrote quite a bit and the WG wanted to keep him as an author of a work in progress. Himanshu: remove MPLS-TP, its not MPLS-TP, applicable to any bi dir tunnel. Mach: OK Andy: Who has read the draft: 6 hands. All agree ready for WG LC will take it to the list. 4 10 min - MPLS-TP PW OAM Configuration - Mach CHEN http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pals-mpls-tp-oam-config Objective: Progress to WG Last Call. Stewart: please clarify "two company documents" in the slides. Greg: this document mentioned in the slides apply Stewart: actually companion drafts Greg: yes, thanks On OAM Configuration slide. YJS: Clarify Adjust OAM entities Mach: Adjust OAM parameters. YJS: Adjust means "I have it running and now I've got to change something, but using Label Release which takes connection down. Greg: once session is up, can still change parameters of BFD session Himanshu: This is about changing the OAM parameters while OAM running. These are the three ways to do it that this spells out. Mach: Label Release only used during boot strapping. If originator sends something receiver dies, receiver will send Release. Updates since -00 version slide YJS: 1. draft uses companion, not company so OK 2. when start of section 3 says doc defines two new TLVs, should say of what. 3. when going through this why PW specific. Why mapping into LDP something you can do for RSVP, then why just PW and not MPLS (will put comments on the list) Greg: specific to RSVP-TE and MPLS-TP. Andy: would like to encourage more review before WG LC 5. 10 min - Seamless-BFD for VCCV - Carlos PIGNATARO http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gp-l2tpext-sbfd-discriminator/ and http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gp-pals-seamless-vccv/ Objective: Present-01 version of SBFD for VCCV, get feedback from WG and request WG adoption Stewart: what is intent with the l2tpext draft Carlos presented slides and discuss how to progress each and why two drafts Running SBFD over PW and changes to data plane and signaling L2TP docu was < 2 pages of content Data tracker says adopted by WG but name doens't reflect. Authors will rename and resubmit Stewart: for SBFD are we reducing modes supporting YJS: same question Carlos: 2 for SBFD modes vs. 4 for BFD - Chairs will need to research status of the modes. YJS: there are 8 modes total - which are mandatory Carlos: scope of presentation is not inclusive, but would like to see simplification. YJS: need to discuss minimum people need to do. When discussion CVType, we discussed what we want to do and simplified. Someone should do for his as well. Carlos: we tried that and we ended up with one mandatory word per control workd and one non mandatory word per control work Stewart: which will be sbfd mandatory mode Carlos: there is currently no mandatory mode. Intersection of joint capapbilities is originals. 6. 10 min - Handling Incoming Label Request for PW FEC Types - Patrice BRISSETTE http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-brissette-pals-pw-fec-label-request Objective: Get direction from WG and gather more feedback from community Patrice presented. In draft only using SHOULD but if clarifying the obvious no one will care so use MUST Luca: draft says implement 5036. Doesn't change anyhing from RFC5036 The chairs disployed RFC4447bis - search for 5036, discussing page 4 last paragaph which says use 5036. REason there is no MUST is because doc also coveres static PW. There was much dialog and discussion on paragraph in section 3 paragraph 6, add a sentence before that goes between the two pages. To qualify the use of 5036. The rest of the discussion will be handled on the list and via last call comments. 7. 15 min - L2VPN IETF Yang model - Patrice BRISSETTE http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-shah-pals-mpls-l2vpn-yang Objective: The L2VPN Yang team has been making great process since last IETF. We would like to present an update of what we have been working on and present that first draft. Carlos presented. This was presented in BESS. Stewart: Should reduce the number of authors Team working well. See the slides for information on the offline meetings. Doing VPWS first because simplest. YJS: There are MIBs that apply here. Is someone going to map the MIBs to the YANG models and any change in the function Himanshu: Noone is doing this. YJS:someone doing in tictoc Himanshu: exception Carlos: not influenced by the MIBs YJS: but you should know differences. EVPN model two meetings one for L2VPN and one for EVPN - now one meeting there needs to be strong connection betwen EVPN and L2VPN The big issue here is not the YANG, it is to get a dev team working together. Note: many of the slides have changed during the meeting Andy: to what extent is this wrok reflected in the Rtg YANG wiki Carlos: offline Glenn Parsons: the YANG Drs are promoting Github for work and cross SDO collaboration with IEEE 802.1 and MEF. Is the intent here to use Github? Carlos: There are plans to do that. Challenge because bulding team. will move there for sure. YJS: there are comparisons with MIBs being done in IEEE. Himanshu: all AC circuit related stuff will be inherited from IEEE and MEF. Carlos: agree Carlos: there is room for new members 8. WITHDRAWN - 10 min - Definition of P2MP PW TLV for LSP-Ping Mechanisms - Parag JAIN http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jain-pals-p2mp-pw-lsp-ping/ Objective: Get WG adoption for this draft. Time slot will be used for presentation of the draft and discussion. ********************************************************************** Overflow (Will be presented if time permits.) ********************************************************************** xx. - None currently ********************************************************************** REMOTE INFORMATION FOR THE PALS SESSION(S) ********************************************************************** Remote Participation Info: http://www.ietf.org/meeting/93/remote-participation.html - No WebEx - IETF 93 Agenda with Audio and Jabber links: http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/93/