Subject: WG summaries for Paris

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 14:26:31 -0700

Dear RTG WG chairs-

If you haven't done so yet, please send a brief summary of the WG meeting
in Paris (2-3 paras max). Please use "reply-all" when doing so.

Thank you.

-- 
Alex
http://www.psg.com/~zinin

---

From: Acee Lindem <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 18:37:31 -0400

>in Paris (2-3 paras max). Please use "reply-all" when doing so.
The OSPF WG met in Paris. Acee indicated RFC 2740 re-spin is almost 
ready for WG
last call. One item he would still like to remove the stub/NSSA area
restriction for unknown LSAs. A new proposal for attaching additional 
attributes
to OSPF routes/links was presented by Sina Mirtorabi. It will be 
discussed on the WG.
A status from Tom Henderson was given by Acee on the progress of the 
OSPF/MANET design
team and the flooding algorithm simulation work being done at Boeing. 
The simulation environment
and a report will be made available to the both the OSPF and MANET WGs.

Padma Pillay-Esnault presented the OSPFv3 graceful restart draft. It is 
a small delta over the
OSPFv2 specification with some additional considerations. Alex Zinin 
presented forwarding
issues related to MTR and why we may want to standardise/document 
forwarding behavior. The
room concensus was generally that it wouldn't be desirable to 
standardise this although more
discussion could be in order as to whether or not there should be an 
informational draft. Finally,
Vishwas Manral presented an informational draft from the RPSEC WG 
documenting the
progress and problems with using IPSec with existing routing protocols.

---

From: Patrick Droz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 10:45:13 +0200

attached is the summary Robert Haas provided to me:

The ForCES wg resolved the final technical issues of the ForCES 
protocol, which includes: finalization of ForCES message and operation 
types, definition of the packet redirection LFBs, adoption of an opaque 
correlator to allow upper layers to match requests and responses, 
detailed specification of response formatting, abandon of fast recovery 
after association loss as well as CE LFB and FE Protocol LFBs.

A refined model for the Logical Function Blocks of the Forwarding 
Engines was presented. It  now supports a flexible event registration 
and notification scheme, a property information that describes meta 
information about the LFB elements themselves, and an aliasing mechanism 
to reference LFB elements in other LFBs.

A revised TCP-based Transport Layer Mapping (TML) and a TIPC-based TML 
were presented. A presentation of the on-going FlexiNET EU project that 
relies on ForCES to offer service programmability was shown.

-- 
   Dr. Patrick Droz 			| [email-masked]
   IBM Zurich Research Laboratory 	| http://www.zurich.ibm.com/~dro
   Saumerstrasse 4 			| Tel. +41-1-724-85-25 CH-8803
   Rueschlikon/Switzerland 		| Fax. +41-1-724-85-78

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 15:24:41 +0100

CCAMP WG Summary

The discussion in CCAMP fell into three sections.

We looked at the status of existing WG I-Ds. Most are either in the RFC Ed
Q or with the ADs for review. Of those remaining in the WG there are not
many significant issues to resolve. The inter-domain solutions drafts need
a little more work, and there was some heated debate about the precise
mechanisms to use for LSP stitching, however resolution appears to have
been reached.

There was an extensive debate about the work plan for the working group.
It was agreed that the way forward was for the chairs to construct (with
the help of the WG) a set of milestones to cover the next one to two
years. The work would cover topics that are already close to or within the
charter and would be sure to include items to "finish off" existing work,
such as MIB modules and implementation advice/surveys. Where large items
of work are identified, CCAMP will look at the possibility of spinning
them off into other/new working groups as was done with L1VPNs.

The third section of the meeting was devoted to a discussion of GMPLS
control of Ethernet networks. There was much debate about what was and was
not in scope for CCAMP and for the IETF. There was plenty of evidence that
the proposals had been misunderstood, and precious little evidence that
the framework I-D had been read. In short, the proposal is to manage
point-to-point Ethernet networks through a GMPLS control plane to provide
end-to-end connectivity, and to offer Ethernet tunnels over lower layer
networks. There is no proposal to change the Ethernet data plane and
frequent reference was made to the way that GMPLS is used to control TDM
networks without changing the data plane. It is an open issue as to what
will be used as the label within such a GMPLS-controlled Ethernet network,
and no decision has been made.

This final topic was identified as a prime candidate for a spin-out to a
new working group and several people will examine the case for a BOF for
Vancouver.

Adrian

---

From: Tomonori TAKEDA <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 01:18:43 +0900

L1VPN WG summary:

This was the first WG meeting, and we went over the objectives and
milestones. Framework I-D was presented, and we concluded that this
needs to be progressed rapidly as this is basic to work for going
forward.

Then, we looked over existing solutions (GVPN and GMPLS overlay),
followed by protocol analysis, and discussed missing functionalities.
It seems that more feedback is needed.

Lastly, we discussed the work plan for protocol works. The initial
target is on the basic mode. There was an intensive discussion at this
point about what is in scope and out of scope for L1VPN WG. One was
about TDM PW type of service, and the other was about scheduling type
of service. Writing some text was requested to understand what needs to
be done.

On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 14:26:31 -0700

---

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 07:27:22 -0400

Hi Alex,

PCE WG meeting summary

The first part of the meeting was devoted to checking progress  
against our Milestones which have been reached with only two  
exceptions: the "PCE discovery" (half done, second part should be  
done in a near future) and the "objective metric" which will first  
require more progress on other WG items.

The remaining open issues related to several IDs have been then  
discussed (namely the PCE Architecture, Generic PCE communication  
requirement and PCE discovery requirement) so as to proceed further  
with WG LC. Most of the time has been spent on a key WG item: the PCE  
communication protocol. Two proposals have been discussed with the  
objective of polling the application area to determine whether they  
would have a candidate protocol to propose that would fit the PCE WG  
requirements. The WG objective is to select a protocol preferably  
before IETF-64.

The meeting concluded with the list of next steps: open issues to be  
sorted out, new required IDs ("less-constrained path computation",  
application-specific requirements IDs (to be initiated by the Design  
Team), PCE discovery protocol and PCE communication protocol).

JP.

---

From: Russ White <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 13:13:21 -0400

The first part of the WG meeting was taken going over current state of 
drafts. We need to look at getting the current work through last call, 
and then doing a charter change for taking on the work that's already 
sitting on the sidelines waiting to be worked on.

We then had two presentations, one about possible changes to S-BGP's 
encryption algorithms to improve its performance, and the second about 
issues with current cryptographic mechanisms available/specified for 
routing protocols.

The minutes are available here:

http://www.rpsec.org/

Along with the three presentations.

:-)

Russ

> in Paris (2-3 paras max). Please use "reply-all" when doing so.

- -- 
[email-masked] CCIE <>< Grace Alone

---

From: Mike McBride <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 12:45:04 -0700 (PDT)

> in Paris (2-3 paras max). Please use "reply-all" when doing so.

PIM WG:

Alex is reviewing (has reviewed now) draft-ietf-pim-sm-v2-new-11 and soon 
entering IETF last call. For draft-ietf-pim-bidir-07, Tom and I just need 
to answer publication request questionnaire and Bill will move along. 
draft-ietf-pim-anycast-rp-04 needs some modifications (now done) before 
IETF last call. Good progress on draft-ietf-pim-sm-bsr-05 and Stig gave a 
report. Should just take one more rev before submittal for WG LC. Lingard 
gave an update on draft-ietf-pim-mib-v2-03 which has miraculously 
generated interested recently. A few objects need to be added/removed and 
then it should be ready. Arjen gave a brief update on 
draft-ietf-pim-proxy. He'll change the title and resubmit an -00.

We also reviewed the request from l3vpn for pim to provide a solution for 
reducing pim messaging particularly in the context of mvpn. We've asked 
l3vpn to provide more direction on scalability requirements. They are 
collecting responses to a Multicast VPN survey that they've distributed to 
gather info on scalability expectations. This will help the pimwg decide 
if there is further work we need to do in this area. Some feel that an 
extension (such as j/p ack) to pim is the answer, some feel pimv3 is the 
answer (using tcp for instance), and some feel there is no real problem to 
solve within pimwg. We previously created a design team for this and some 
solutions were provided, but we'll see if this is work we will adopt.

mike