[00:02:35] matt.bocci joins the room [00:02:49] lllmartini joins the room [00:03:46] Here's the WebEx link: [00:03:49] https://workgreen.webex.com/workgreen/j.php?ED=130207752&UID=0&PW=NNzhiYTFlNjUw&RT=MiM0OQ%3D%3D [00:03:55] I have it :-) [00:04:32] :) [00:07:59] matt.bocci leaves the room [00:08:58] hide.zebra joins the room [00:11:13] David Sinicrope joins the room [00:12:25] LouBerger joins the room [00:13:06] AdrianFarrel joins the room [00:14:55] Anyone participating from remote? [00:15:21] mawatari joins the room [00:15:58] scott.mansfield joins the room [00:18:43] calvin joins the room [00:20:13] Currently presenting... [00:20:15] LDP Extensions for MPLS-TP PW OAM configuration - Fei Zhang [00:22:34] no questions [00:23:00] MPLS-TP Lock Instruction - Xuehui Dai [00:24:24] elisa.bellagamba joins the room [00:26:08] weihongbo joins the room [00:26:44] Hello,AdrainFarrel [00:27:27] Hello [00:27:38] Scott: Are you scribing? [00:27:53] Elisa is scribing now [00:28:02] Excellent. Thanks [00:28:15] just rebooted my pc [00:28:18] Lou Berger [00:28:23] Many thanks... [00:28:34] LSP MEP/MIP or PWE layer? [00:28:38] answer: both [00:29:21] Lou Berger: there are common requirements that are crossing working groups. This needs to be coordinated between PWE and MPLS [00:30:21] There is a process question, that needs to be discussed. But not right now. [00:30:28] Loa [00:31:18] Merge the drafts into one... This one and draft-boutros-mpls-tp-loopback [00:31:24] answer: yes [00:31:38] luca martini --> looking at the draft I'm not sure we can lock 1 direction. [00:32:38] answerwhat do you mean by lock in PW. If 1 direction fails transmitting, the 2 direction will stop transmitting [00:34:05] Kam Lam --> which layer (referring to luca) --> depends on which MEP [00:34:45] Sasha --> the drafts it is presumed to apply also for sections, correct? Yes [00:36:08] Lou --> you made a point that section is not pw nor LSP [00:36:58] Sasha --> is it really necessary to apply lock to MPLS-TP session? [00:38:20] open question on what locking a section means (either locking pw or lsp) [00:38:30] now presenting [00:38:30] Multiprotocol Label Switching Transport NM Auto discovery requirement - Qiaogang Chen [00:44:22] kam lam --> in SG 15 there has been similar discussions [00:45:09] This should be seen in the context of G.7714 [00:45:13] Not OSPF [00:45:14] stewart --> gathering information from nodes adjacency in order to report to NMS, right? yes [00:47:09] scott --> agree with proposal, but the document should be integrated in the mpls-tp nm fw [00:47:34] loa --> pretty much the same comment: need to settle the fw first [00:49:26] stewart --> kind of orthogonal: 1. figure out which is remaining to discover 2. arrive to the mip 3. choose a mechanism [00:50:40] adrian -> slight difference beween discovering and cross checking (done with lmp) [00:50:56] stewart --> agree with adrian [00:51:58] My point was that cross-checking with NMS is done with by verification. This is done today in LMP [00:52:25] thanks [00:52:40] On the other hand discovery is a "plug and play" function that could use PPP or LMP and is described in G.7714 [00:54:33] Glenn Parsons joins the room [00:54:35] up now... [00:54:57] Multiprotocol Label Switching Transport NM Auto discovery requirement - Qiaogang Chen [00:55:58] :-) [00:59:40] satoru.matsushima joins the room [01:02:59] 2 issues to discuss [01:03:03] 1- client [01:03:06] 2- mep and mip [01:03:42] we are now going to "workshop mode" [01:03:47] closing here the meeting [01:03:52] Ooops no [01:04:04] Stays as WG meeting for these two issues [01:04:12] THEN goes to workshop mode [01:04:19] ah, ok! sorry!!! [01:04:32] We need the discussion of these two points in the minute :-) [01:04:34] Thanks! [01:04:38] ok [01:05:10] chenran joins the room [01:05:11] martin and I are still taking minutes [01:05:25] but we should keep the jabber going [01:06:33] MPLS-TP Client relationship slide has been modified. Now shows a PW-base service, a Labelled service, and an IP Service [01:07:17] The PW-based service rides on PW Payload->PW Label (s=1) -> LSP label (s=0) [01:07:25] m-tetsuya joins the room [01:07:26] Are the new slides in datatracker? [01:07:38] loa --> when saying no label do you mean the explicit null label or doesn not need to be there? [01:07:49] answer --> doesn't need to be there [01:10:45] question --> you can't know shich kind of service is looking at the label. Rigt [01:12:44] cbj joins the room [01:13:17] Dave --> the middle coloumn can be broken in 3 cases [01:16:37] stewart --> tp pw uses control word? yes [01:17:08] Matthew --> it might not be depending on the incapsulation [01:17:24] martin --> maybe woth having a picture with a gal [01:18:45] Glenn: no, slides not yet posted [01:19:06] Glenn: matthew said sorry and will post soon [01:20:51] lou --> we should provide the same tipe of interface whatever the clients are [01:25:35] 村上哲也 joins the room [01:25:40] chogor joins the room [01:25:53] in pkt pw you have the client lsr embedded in the behave [01:26:10] 村上哲也 leaves the room [01:27:10] andy --> the usage intended for the first coloumn is for example is/is ospf... [01:28:08] malins --> router interconnection over transport network --> case 1 [01:30:52] what are the currently defined plans for mpls [01:31:11] or what can you carry in an mpls label today? [01:32:33] (Lou) RFC 3031 says any n/w layer protocol can be carried in an MPLS LSP [01:33:30] and also tp fw section 7, right? [01:33:59] we can work with the MPLS-TP fwk and make it say what we like [01:35:00] Agree [01:35:10] ----------------- discussion on MIPs and MEPs [01:36:26] LouBerger leaves the room: Replaced by new connection [01:37:11] Luca and Italo presenting [01:37:25] Glenn Parsons leaves the room [01:39:13] Where can we get luca's presentation? [01:42:23] Luca has explained how it is possible to get to one of 2 MIPs in a node playing iwth the TTL exiprration [01:42:45] Dave said it is not the normal way to do, it is just an implementation feature [01:42:55] (adrian, is it right?) [01:44:49] Hello, elisa [01:45:13] Yoshinoiri --> thisi is just one of the scenario I presented in Munich, the other scenario was how to reach P6 (external MEP in the egress node) [01:45:16] hello [01:45:24] where could we get the the discussion note about MEP&MIP in IETF76? [01:45:50] will you upload to MPLS-TP wiki? [01:47:06] Adrian channeling from Nurit --> the internal implementation does not mean that the message is going in the internal data path [01:48:49] Loa --> reply to comment from Yoshinori. The requirements require to place MIPs and MEPs wherever [01:49:23] to wei --> yes, I will upload it as soon as I get them [01:51:54] OK, Thank you! [01:52:20] no problem [01:53:12] these slides will also be posted on the meeting mateirals page for the working group [01:53:20] and minutes are being taken [01:53:40] but this is moving very fast, and we will have to capture the discussions in I-D text and then debate them [01:54:12] Got it, Thanks [01:54:56] The requirements about the number of MEP/MIPs must be clarified in the OAM-framework document before the solutions documents are started [01:55:21] Scott: why change our habits? [01:55:33] I'm an optimist [01:55:38] We are engineers, we build solutions :'( [01:55:55] running code rocks! [01:59:35] Loa: the requirements in section 2.2.3 in the oam-requirements document captures what we need to have in order to start building the functionality [02:02:38] Yoshinori --> in my opinion OAM is mostly for maintenance [02:05:13] Question is: Does MPLS-TP OAM requirements document cover all the requirements from Yoshinori? [02:05:34] Question: Do we need to update the OAM requirements document, or does it specify what you need? [02:06:15] Yoshinori: The framework can take this material [02:06:22] Yoshinori --> since we are discussing the fw doument, there should be some roome of change [02:06:27] Loa: Yes, but do we need to change the OAM requirements spec [02:07:16] Yoshinori: This requirement is not part of Yoshinori's comment on the OAM reuqirments document. I do not need to change the OAM requirements document [02:07:35] Lam Kam --> requirement is more high level [02:14:42] hide.zebra leaves the room [02:16:12] I heard Yoshinori say he wants to revise the requirements expressed in his draft to add more function to the outgoing MIP [02:16:30] Can't we just move this straight into the framework draft? [02:16:40] Yoshinori: wants to add PM functionality to his draft in addition to loopback [02:18:01] that means Yoshinori will add LM/DM to loopback? [02:18:03] The OAM Framework draft could provide more detail in the areas of Loopback and PM. More requirements will be needed [02:18:08] no [02:18:22] in addition to Loopback, cover PM in his draft [02:18:32] yeah,i see [02:23:03] formal meeting lcosed [02:23:05] closed [02:23:10] scott.mansfield leaves the room [02:23:21] Italo now speaking about something else... [02:28:43] calvin leaves the room [02:33:47] AdrianFarrel leaves the room [02:34:52] David Sinicrope leaves the room [02:35:28] satoru.matsushima leaves the room [02:35:47] m-tetsuya leaves the room [02:35:56] elisa.bellagamba leaves the room [02:37:55] lllmartini leaves the room [02:47:40] cbj leaves the room: I'm happy Miranda IM user. Get it at http://miranda-im.org/. [02:59:11] chogor leaves the room [03:10:48] chenran leaves the room: I'm happy Miranda IM user. Get it at http://miranda-im.org/. [03:33:03] mawatari leaves the room [03:56:59] weihongbo leaves the room: I'm happy Miranda IM user. Get it at http://miranda-im.org/. [04:07:43] AdrianFarrel joins the room [04:07:50] AdrianFarrel leaves the room [10:52:34] weihongbo joins the room [10:53:07] weihongbo leaves the room: I'm happy Miranda IM user. Get it at http://miranda-im.org/. [11:12:22] David Sinicrope joins the room [12:37:02] David Sinicrope leaves the room [12:37:59] David Sinicrope joins the room [13:28:52] David Sinicrope leaves the room