Subject: Re: gsmp minutes

From: Hans Sjöstrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 13:09:29 +0100

These are the draft minutes from the GSMP session in San Diego

Regards
/// Hasse

--------------

The GSMP working group held a meeting at IETF49, Thursday, December 14, 
1300-1400 . The meeting was chaired by Kenneth Sundell and Avri Doria, and 
notes were taken by Hans Sjostrand.

1. Agenda bashing

The agenda was presented. 

The 2nd last call closed without any substantive comments on the three
documents. The fourth document, the applicability document, didn't have any
substantive comments from the first last call. 

Two proto work items will be presented. The TDM label doc and the mibs and
the pibs that where approved for proto work items awaiting an approved
charter update.  

Then a conversation on the charter update. It was mentioned that the gsmp WG is
considered for the new sub-ip area. 

The chair asked the working group if they wanted to add, change or reorder
any item. There were no comments. 

2. Last call comments

- draft-ietf-gsmp-08.txt

Kenneth Sundell presented the updates of the gsmp spec. The last call went
out after the Pittsburgh meeting, second last call a week before this
meeting. A detailed list of comments and responses/changes has previously
been posted to the list. Lot of cleanup work, because of history with four
different editors, to get the spec more consistent. Thanks for the help with
comments. 

Some major changes, TDM labels where taken out, folded into another document
that will be presented later this meeting. Also, all labels are now encoded
as TLVs, the short labels where removed. 

Minor changes, e.g. the PTYPE is updated to allow the controller to assign
partitions and multiple FEC element enhanced the FEC Label type.

Rev 08 passed without comments, next step is IESG last call. What the chairs
have done is to let the AD know that the WG are about to submit 4 specs to
IESG, they ok'd it. 

- draft-ietf-gsmp-mib-03.txt

Hans Sjostrand presented the mib updates. The object structure is easy and
symmetrical. 

The notifications where unchanged from the previous version. The changes
where posted to the list and are also listed in the I-D. Virtual was removed
from all names, the mib was reviewed by a mib expert so the mib got plenty
of snmp updated, e.g. proper internet addressing, TCs added etc. Also
partition type was added and is  corresponding to the one in the base spec. 

There where one comment made at the last call, to clarify
gsmpSessionDiscontinuityTime object description. Also an editorial comment
to get rid of the funky ¡ characters. Also a contact change, Hans is moving
from Ericsson to IPunplugged. An update is early next year.
  
Comment from the AD that there is no big change so there is nothing for the
WG to consider, the AD review will start and we just notify them when the
updated version is out.  

It was asked whether it compiles. Yes, it compiles using several well-known
compilers including libsmi. There is a problem with SMICng because of a bug
in that compiler in the handling of access-to-notify so that needs to be
handled with a compile option. 

- draft-ietf-gsmp-encaps-03.txt

The last call comments were fixed, the majority ofchanges were due to the
comments from Tom, which was mostly editorial in nature. 

No comments on the 2nd last call. It's ready to go to IESG on rev 03. 

Tom Worster wanted to know the expected time before the IESG has finished
their review. Rob Coltun answered that the IESG is prepared, but it's a
review process where they could be deferred for a while for updates etc. and
it is unpredictable. Also, given the degree of controversy, it might be
long.  

3. G-MPLS support, draft status

None of these I-Ds where submitted, this is just a status information. 

- TDM labels new draft 

Jonathan Sadler presented it. G-MPLS label formats has been solicited for
SONET/SDH, label formats for PDH have been proposed. 

Should be common constructs as for G-MPLS. There are some changes, the
biggest change is how fractionated services are done. Label list vs. bit
field encodings. New services determination e.g. whole port switching,
needing a port label.  

The remaining work includes capability determination and traffic
characteristics. Also inclusion of service layer constraints. 

Assistance and help is more than appreciated. 

What's not included? 

Packets label format and characteristics. Optical labels which are subject
to working group re-charter. Some formats were submitted informally last
meeting. Which way we go has to be discussed within the WG. 

- MIB/PIB for switch partitioning. 

Todd Anderson gave a status report. A first version was presented at the
last ietf. To assign virtual switches  based on partitions. The pib was
converted to a mib. A virtual link was added to allow connection between
partitions within the same switch.  Also, the mib was compiled and the
problems due to that were fixed. A new rev is ready and will be sent to the
list next month for comments. After these comments are resolved the MIB will
be converted to a PIB aswell.

Some open issues. GSMP control is configured for partioned switches,  maybe
other controllers wanted to be partitioned, e.g. megaco controllers or TDM
switches. He requested for volunteers to start working on these issues.. 

Avri noted that the mib/pib is focused to pertain to the stuff that are
going out now, to get the resources tied to static partitions. There have
been requests from service providers that the they want dynamically assigned
partition resources without reboot of the switch. That could be part of the
recharter. Then we need a notion of the switch model that we are
partitioning. When we get more general we have to be more rigorous in the
models. Working group input on the mib is needed. 

4. Charter Status update. 
The proposed charter has been submitted to the IESG. This charter has
reached consensus on the gsmp mailing list.. 

The new charter is adding support for optical and TDM switching. Defining
mechanisms for switch partitions and mechanisms for control of IP packet
switching devices. This is up for negotiation if that work should be made at
all, or where it belongs. It's switch management support protocols kind of
work but definitely widening the scope of the WG. 

Regarding support for optical switching , the WG will add capabilities to
the GSMP spec in cooperation with the IPO WG or whatever WG that there might
be concerned with optics. 

There where a comment from Rob Coltun that we have to gauge the industry
support, there is no question that the tech is cool, but has it been
developed and deployed?  

Avri responded that there are two types in this industry, first the service
providers wanting the products, second come the vendors having the products.
Within the context of MSF (Multiservice Switching Forum) which is about half
service providers and half vendors, there is a strong interest from service
providers, especially to be able to get new services without forklifting
their network. 

Part of the discussion was regarding optical and TDM that there is a very
strong interest to se it, GSMP where too late for ATM. Avri mentioned that 
the company she works for is currently designing this capability into some 
of its equipment. There is also conversation about how much different vendors 
are willing to talk about it in public. 

Fred Baker asked; How do we know that there are vendors and that there are
customers. How many vendors are supporting this and are there any networks
supporting it, has it been deployed anywhere? 

Avri argued that as soon as it's proposed standard, we need to have the
protocol first and sometimes later we have the networks. 

There is an interop event being planned for q3 2001 with four vendors that
have announced interest. 

Jerry Sydir of CPLANE announced that they had a product for GSMP
controllers. Also there have been lots of extensions by the service provides
themselves. They want to do it themselves to get the control of the services
in the network. 

Olle Pers of Telia announced that as a service provider they would like to
have these interfaces, especially on optical equipment. And they want to
have an open standard and not vendor proprietary.

There was opposition when the TDM was removed, that work was added because
the companies pushed it to the WG. There is a draft in progress. That draft
looks in to the traditional cross-connect perspective. It could have a more
G-MPLS like perspective. 

Avri noted that the preliminary interest is mainly technological and getting
the protocol out. There are proprietary products deployed. One very major
company has deployed the control entity with big success. It's not that hard
to extrapolate from that. 

Any more information could be sent to the IESG. 

Tom Worster noted that there is a little of the chicken and egg problem.
There has been a fair amount of interest and people are doing proprietary
stuff. We want to get the standard out as quickly as possible.

The IESG desired the carriers saying that the are ready deploy this, that it
is exactly the right way. We missed the first wave with ATM but maybe we are
ready for the second wave. 

Whether we could get testimonials from carriers that they want this (more
than Telia who spoke up here now) we should get it. 

The milestones where presented by Avri. We slipped one year last time but
this time we have a good chance to be in time. 

Abel Weinrib made the comment that you skipped over the control of IP
bullet, for this WG it feels like a sidetrack. For example, it's coming as
third item in order on the charter list. 

Avri responded that there are a lot of interest in it here, but it shows up
as third because it's controversy in the discussion with the ADs. It's not
sure that GSMP is the right vehicle for this. Maybe a PIB is a better
vehicle for this. It's really depends on where the IESG expands the charter.

Abel Weinrib noted that FORCES wants the people over to the forces bof to do
the work there. 

5. Intrerop event

MSF is thinking on sponsoring an interop event. There is also a  prospective 
corporate sponsor (that is not Nortel). It will be a phase one testing, there will be
a test on the specification and not on specific implementation. There will
be no report about how the equipment performed or not, the discussion will
be around how the specs perform. 

Meeting adjourned by Avri Doria.