[06:36:58] scott.mansfield joins the room [07:01:28] http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ccamp/agenda?item=agenda75.html [07:01:46] http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/75/slides/ccamp-0.ppt [07:02:05] Kenichi joins the room [07:02:16] One meeting, there is no meeting on Friday this time [07:02:25] Kenichi leaves the room [07:02:32] Next IETF, the ccamp meeting may be on Friday [07:02:43] http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/75/slides/ccamp-1.ppt [07:02:50] Jonas Martensson joins the room [07:02:50] Working Group Status [07:03:10] Lou Berger is the new co-chair, took over at IETF 74 [07:03:30] New RFCs 5493 & 5553 [07:04:17] gmpls-ason-routing-ospf in IESG Evaluation, new version needed [07:04:42] Kenichi joins the room [07:04:56] Many documents waiting on chair action or a new version from the authors (see slide 4) [07:05:41] jonsadler joins the room [07:05:54] jonsadler leaves the room [07:06:13] sadlerjon joins the room [07:06:48] VCAT (ccamp-gmpls-vcat-lcas ... Is this ready for last call? Needs to be refreshed because it expired. [07:07:12] 5 drafts not on the agenda for IETF 75 [07:07:33] ccamp-gmpls-oam-requirements is being abandoned, matters to the MPLS-TP folks [07:07:54] ethernet-gmpls-provider-reqs --- need information from the authors [07:08:13] pontus.skoldstrom joins the room [07:08:58] OAM configuration, Attilla states that this will be discussed later in the agenda today [07:10:00] OAM Requirements, group looked at it and integrated into the MPLS-TP work, all requirements except the control plane requirements which are not covered in MPLS-TP [07:11:11] Lou: Group needs to consider new charter [07:11:34] Liaisons, OIF and ITU-T, MEF and IEEE status [07:11:42] OIF will be reviewed later [07:12:12] MEF and IEEE, need clean drafts to send [07:12:34] MPLS-TP joint between MPLS, PWE3, CCAMP, and L2VPN [07:13:06] More TP work on Wednesday 13-15 [07:13:50] Discussion on a flag bit (RFC 4873 Errata) [07:15:14] No one was using the flag bit, Deprecate the flag, the flag cannot be used [07:15:52] Re-Charter (end of the current timeline) Consider: MPLS-TP extensions, WSON, OTN, and other ccamp extensions [07:16:08] Send comments to the list or privately to Lou [07:17:20] http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/75/slides/ccamp-2.ppt [07:17:29] ITU-T and OIF progress report [07:17:50] Q11/15 update to G.709 (100g support) [07:18:04] expected at the October ITU-T meeting in Geneva [07:18:39] Q12 & 14/15: WSON, G.7713 consent in Sept [07:20:46] OIF completed interop in June 2009: 7 carriers on 3 continents using 11 vendors [07:21:49] Routing in OIF (will this be incompatible with IETF standards -- Ross)? [07:22:20] OIF will work on standards, and try to get the updates adopted by the IETF [07:24:01] There will be draft brought to the IETF to help fill the gaps the OIF sees in the standard [07:25:02] What was tested in the OIF demo? [07:25:18] RFC 4872 full LSP rerouting was tested [07:25:46] CCAMP guidance requested in four areas [07:26:58] Experimental association object, restoration triggering is unclear, error codes need to clarified [07:27:58] The uniqueness problem is important, this is an area of contribution [07:28:31] The uniqueness issue is also being covered in the identifiers work in the TP work [07:29:51] Liaisons are ok, but individual drafts would be very helpful to delve into the details of the problem [07:31:31] It is up to person configuring the connection between two administrative domains to ensure uniqueness [07:32:13] Malcolm: this is being discussed in MPLS-TP see the identifier draft [07:33:45] next liaison on routing extensions: [07:34:14] sadlerjon leaves the room [07:34:14] OIF is incorporating ASON routing extensions: new features needed: [07:34:59] sadlerjon joins the room [07:36:11] Layer-scoped link attributes, local connection type (switch or terminate) within a layer can an end-point switch or terminate, NSAP formats needed in addition to IPv4/6 [07:38:44] How many carrier requirements are there for non-IP addressing? Answer: ask the SPs [07:38:55] Next presentation: http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/75/slides/ccamp-3.ppt [07:39:10] Data Channel Status Confirmation Last call results [07:39:24] aman joins the room [07:39:55] Comment resolution, addressed soft state issue, and how LMP messages run over the control channel [07:41:55] Data Chanel status definition changed, added new sections for message construction and backward compatibility, re-transmission mechanism added to section 5, and editorial changes [07:43:11] LMP behaviors added based on RFC4204, 4207, 4209 and data channel (in this draft) [07:43:30] Draft is ready for IESG review [07:44:10] Lou: latest version need to be clearer on backward compatibility [07:44:40] Next: http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/75/slides/ccamp-4.ppt [07:44:51] Conversion between PC and SPC [07:46:32] Handover between permanent connections and soft permanent connections [07:47:33] Last call comment resolution: added a procedures section, clarified definition of Handover bit, error object extended to support (other failure) [07:50:23] Presentation provides an overview of the failure scenarios [07:52:55] How is information passed from the management plane to the control plane? 1) Full Ero passed by MP or 2) minimal set passed from MP to ingress LER, with the rest collected by the data plane hop-by-hop [07:53:16] Authors are requesting a second last call [07:53:30] Lou: this document is ready for a second last call [07:53:47] Next: http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/75/slides/ccamp-5.ppt [07:54:22] Data Path Delay Metric (DPPM) [07:54:46] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sun-ccamp-dpm-00 [07:58:01] This draft defines three data path related metrics [07:59:10] delay from RESV received to forward data path, delay from RESV Sent to Reversed data path, delay from PATH Received to Forward data path [08:02:59] Authors ask: Do we need more metrics for data path delay? [08:03:52] Authors request more comments, would like this draft to become a WG draft, then go to Last call early next year [08:04:25] Lou: This is an important addition to the DPPM work [08:04:29] Next: http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/75/slides/ccamp-6.ppt [08:04:57] On the association of GMPLS Recovery LSPs (Lou acting as an individual contributor) [08:05:38] Clarifies ASSOCIATION Object processing in the context of recovery [08:06:48] Lou: Please review the details covered in the presentation and in the document [08:09:25] This is an informational draft, the work was requested by the WG but may not need to be WG document [08:10:39] sdecugis joins the room [08:11:05] Do a bis on 4872 and 4873 to clarify the documents based on this informational draft [08:11:18] sdecugis leaves the room [08:11:43] Malcolm: Suggests that this draft becomes a working draft, so that others can reference [08:12:31] Adrian: This draft should have IETF consensus [08:14:01] One vote to support the bis option [08:14:09] Another vote for bis option [08:14:53] Look to Dimitri and Lou to figure out best way to progress [08:14:57] Next: http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/75/slides/ccamp-7.ppt [08:15:19] GMPLS Extensions for the Evolving G.709 OTN Control [08:16:27] Lou: old topic made new again... OIF defining new OTN types, extensions needed. WG chairs want one document, but currently two options [08:17:02] RFC 4328 describes control tech for OTN, needs to be updated to support new OTN features [08:17:42] 100Gbps is a driver for the changes [08:19:06] This draft wants to change the ODUk label format [08:24:18] Next: http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/75/slides/ccamp-8.ppt [08:24:33] Second draft associated with G.709 OTN Control [08:27:31] aman leaves the room [08:27:35] This draft also defines a new "generalized label" for new OTN applications [08:27:59] The new label is also backwardly compatible with RFC4328 [08:30:50] Next: http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/75/slides/ccamp-9.ppt [08:31:07] Extensions for OTN and SONET/SDH OAM configurations [08:31:35] Defines TLVs to support configuration information needed [08:32:16] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kern-ccamp-rsvp-te-sdh-otn-oam-ext-00 [08:34:51] Authors asking for feedback and would like this document to become a working group draft [08:35:49] Discuss on the list, there are OAM capabilities defined in G.709 asking for alignment with ITU-T Q14 (Kam) [08:36:06] Next: http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/75/slides/ccamp-10.ppt [08:36:18] RSVP-TE extensions to GMPLS calls [08:36:37] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-call-extensions-01 [08:38:41] Michael joins the room [08:39:58] Adopt the document as a WG document, and continue to modify text/comments [08:40:22] Next: http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/75/slides/ccamp-11.ppt [08:40:41] WSON topic covered in next three slide sets [08:40:44] Michael leaves the room [08:41:16] WSON framework draft, start finalizing for last call [08:41:25] Next draft (Information Model) [08:41:32] http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/75/slides/ccamp-12.ppt [08:41:58] Information model address the generalization of the work [08:42:44] The information model is more generic and can apply to other technologies rather than Optical [08:42:58] Not specific to Optical and Lambdas [08:44:08] Next: Encoding Draft [08:44:16] http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/75/slides/ccamp-13.ppt [08:44:42] This is a standards track draft and the authors ask for serious review from the working group [08:47:13] Next steps for draft: extend to include regenerators and OEO switches based on WSON RWA (discuss) [08:47:25] If that isn't added, the draft is close to completion [08:47:44] Lou: Still need more discussion on breaking out the generic parts [08:48:21] Next: More WSON drafts, http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/75/slides/ccamp-14.ppt [08:48:38] WSON signal characteristics and NE compatibility [08:48:53] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bernstein-ccamp-wson-signal-00 [08:50:41] Expand the WSON elements understood by the control plane to include regenerators, OEO switches, and wavelength converters (handled by this draft) [08:53:06] AdrianFarrel joins the room [08:54:17] The draft defines new "optical compatibility" constraints [08:54:30] Next steps: to framework? separate draft? [08:54:40] pontus.skoldstrom leaves the room [08:56:30] Align with G.680 for the impairments, the work to include regenerators is new work [08:57:06] WG Chairs suggest to keep the work separate [08:57:22] Next: http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/75/slides/ccamp-15.ppt [08:57:29] Signaling Extensions for WSON [08:57:51] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bernstein-ccamp-wson-signaling-04 [08:58:24] skipping this presentation [08:58:46] Question: based on discussion that happened in PCE yesterday [09:00:17] There is work that need to be done to efficiently carry the information needed to support modeling OEO [09:02:56] How do you pick which regenerator to use? Parameters can be set, something like what is described in Atilla's draft. Currently no hooks in control plane yet, this is part of the work that needs to be completed. [09:05:08] Next: http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/75/slides/ccamp-16.ppt [09:05:20] OSPF extensions in support of RWA in WSON [09:05:34] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zhang-ccamp-rwa-wson-routing-ospf-01.txt [09:05:46] Impairment is not considered in this draft [09:08:43] Next steps: adopt as a working group document, continue to get comments and get consistent with the encoding draft. [09:11:14] Next: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-martinelli-ccamp-synch-signaling-01 [09:11:35] GMPLS Synch signaling [09:12:12] http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/75/slides/ccamp-17.ppt [09:12:14] Kenichi leaves the room [09:13:30] Authors looking for comments on the draft [09:13:49] Next: http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/75/slides/ccamp-18.ppt [09:14:09] Update on the framework for WSON with Impairments (now a working group draft) [09:14:24] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-impairments [09:14:56] Approximate Impairment Estimation (G.680, G.sup39) [09:16:16] Kenichi joins the room [09:17:51] Next steps: SG15 Q6, work to remain consistent with Framework and Encoding documents [09:18:16] Malcolm: Need to scope this draft to linear impairment information [09:18:34] ITU-T doesn't know how to share non-linear impairments [09:18:47] Author: Good point, needs to be made clearer [09:20:20] Greg: in certain cases there is no distinction between types of impairments, it has to do with qualified paths [09:20:42] Get a sense of the scope of the applicability of the draft [09:21:43] Author: hear from Q6, and ensure agreement [09:22:25] Next: http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/75/slides/ccamp-19.ppt [09:22:37] Information Model for Impaired Optical Path [09:23:03] Based on g.680, no new impairments are defined in this draft [09:24:04] Distributed impairment accumulation model is not included in this draft [09:25:36] Next steps: Continue to liaise with Q6, and determine if distributed computation should be considered [09:25:49] Next: http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/75/slides/ccamp-20.ppt [09:26:01] Encoding draft [09:26:29] No real update, next steps work in parallel with the impairment drafts [09:27:18] Q6: this can only be done to calculate true valid paths under constrained conditions [09:27:18] Jonas Martensson leaves the room [09:28:41] Chair: This is early work, and people understand that this work must not consider handling class 3 yet [09:30:14] Need to understand what the draft can be used for, bring up on the mailing list [09:30:52] Next: http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/75/slides/ccamp-21.ppt [09:31:00] Optical Impairment Signaling [09:31:12] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-martinelli-ccamp-optical-imp-signaling-02.txt [09:32:22] This draft is discussing the "distributed impairment validation" [09:32:34] Not a working group document yet, take the comments to the list [09:32:47] This ends ccamp for IETF 75 [09:33:02] scott.mansfield leaves the room [09:34:35] Kenichi leaves the room [09:36:00] sadlerjon leaves the room [09:36:44] AdrianFarrel leaves the room [10:50:32] sadlerjon joins the room [10:53:52] sadlerjon leaves the room: Replaced by new connection [10:53:52] sadlerjon joins the room [11:51:23] sadlerjon leaves the room