Subject: [Fwd: draft gsmp minutes (london)]

From: "Kenneth Sundell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 14:48:45 +0200

hi,
i don't know if this went through, i got some strange mail failure. if
you already got the original message, i apologize.

regards,
ken

Subject: draft gsmp minutes (london)
From: Kenneth Sundell <[email-masked]>
To: GSMP-list <[email-masked]>
Cc: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 14:04:33 +0200

hi,
attached are the compiled minutes from the last gsmp meeting in london.
i tried to get them out last friday but my network dived. please take a
look and comment to the list and/or to avri and me today (deadline for
proceedings to the ietf are due today).

regards,
ken

CHAIRS: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
        Kenneth Sundell <[email-masked]>

Notes: John Noerenberg

AGENDA:
1. Agenda bashing 
2. Reports on status of drafts submitted to last call 
   2.1. draft-ietf-gsmp-09 (Kenneth Sundell)
   2.2. draft-ietf-gsmp-encaps-03 (Avri Doria)
   2.3. draft-ietf-gsmp-mib-05 (Joachim Buerkle) 
3. Design Team Overview (Avri)
   3.1. Report from Optical requirements design team
        - draft-ietf-gsmp-reqs-00 (Avri) 
   3.2. Report from Specification design team
        -no draft (Jonathan Sadler)
   3.3. Reports from Dynamic Partitioning design team. 
        - draft-ietf-gsmp-dyn-part-reqs-00 (Joachim)
4. Change of Message Format
   - draft-kullgren-gsmp-message-format-00.txt 
   (Georg Kullgren)

1. Angenda bashing
   - No additions or changes to the Agenda

2. Reports on status of drafts submitted to last call

   2.1 draft-ietf-gsmp-09 (kenneth)

   The changes were folded into two categories; editorial and more 
   substantive changes. Among the editorial there were contributors
   added, some cleanups and addition of clarifying text, especially 
   in the adjacency protocol chapter. The clarification consisted 
   of explanation of the rules and also some examples were added. 
   The rules are still unchanged.

   More substantative changes included (as shown in the slides):
    - Added event sequence number (all port config ch. 8.3) in order 
      to align with chapter 8.2. 
    - Re-shuffeling some fields in chapter 8.2, 8.3 and 8.4 after
      request from implementors. 

   Changes may or may not require new WG Last Call. The AD's replied
   that the decision is up to the working group. There has not been 
   any responses from the mailing list so far. There was a rough
   consensus in the room that the changes were accepted (by humming).

   The IANA Section is still on the IESG's plate. The Security 
   Considerations need elaboration. The next version should contain
   an addition stating that TCP is a must if there are more than one
   hop between the controller and the controlled.

   A new version will be added after the London meeting.

   2.2 draft-ietf-gsmp-encaps-03 (avri)

   There were a minor set of issues that still were needed. The usage
   of terms defined in rfc2119 (e.g. MUST and MAY)should be added. 
   The usage of FCS, that is a standard ethernet definition remains 
   in the document for historical reasons. The port# assignment origin
   needs to be clarified in the iana considerations. Also a reference
   (url) to iana should be updated.
   
   A new version will be submitted after the London meeting.

   2.3 draft-ietf-gsmp-mib-05 (joachim)

   There were a number of minor editorial changes (the document includes
   a revision history chapter that will be removed when the spec enters
   rfc state. New for this version is that the mib now allows for future
   gsmp encapsulation types. There was also a clarification added to 
   point out that MapNotification should be seen as a  complement to 
   rfc2573 (filter application) rather than a duplication. Addressing
   scope has been made more sensible. The WG attendees agreed that the
   changes were not substantive.

   The AD present commented on iana consideration, it should be added 
   if missing. Also a remark that the rfc-editor wants a final revision
   instead a list of changes. That was agreed.

3. Chair comments on design teams (avri)

   This part of the meeting was a status update from the gsmp
   design teams. The Optical requirements design team has issued
   the draft-ietf-reqs-00, needs more contributors. Report from
   the Specification design team, currently there are two people; 
   optical architect and an implementer. Chair wants 2nd implementer.

   3.1. Draft-ietf-gsmp-reqs-00 report (avri)

   Previous meeting made draft-doria-gsmp-req-olsr-01.txt to a working 
   group document. Comments from the Last meeting included question if 
   there were any overlaps with ITU work on OXC's, e.g. the ASTN's
   CCI s/b standardized. ITU Steve Trowbridge ITU SG 15 vice-chair was 
   present in the meeting room. Will discuss with chairs.

   The new version adds support for G.709 and PDH labels and also 
   tentative support for link bundles.  
   It would be useful to direct the use of OXC based Restoration 
   capabilities. This would change the relationship between the
   master and the slave. Renamed reserved to dedicated.
   GSMP AddBranch was extended to specify input/output branch for 
   dedicated protection link.
   The following will be considered in the next versions; 
   SONET/SDH payload support to be added and Bundle support to be added.

   We need more implementer input.

   3.2. Specification design team (jonathan)

   Protocol extensions for optical, plus implementation experience
   (added to -09 draft). Some structures were reordered for simplifying 
   implementation.

   Among isssues; Support current optical equipment flexibility,
   Multiple layers supported where each layer is independent,
   Gsmp must be able to label control messages. Trail termination 
   types need to be identified. Example of SONET/SDH given.
   Result will be protocol extensions.

   No draft is available yet but will be out before next IETF

   3.3.  Reports from Dynamic Partitioning design team (joachim)
         draft-ietf-gsmp-dyn-part-reqs-00

   To answer if charter to be amended to include.
   Added description at introduction. Clarifications from previous 
   revisions. The scope is more carefully defined now. Specified 
   relationship between Partition manager, Network element (Partitions) 
   and Controller. Partitioning requirements updated.
   The gsmp working group needs to read and review. The Chairs exhortation 
   for participation.
   The Draft is intended to become an Informational RFC.

4. GSMP message update
   draft-kullgren-gsmp-message-format-00.txt

   George is an implementer and had some issues regarding message 
   structure with sizeable fields. 
   He requested re-ordering Label field to simplify structuring and 
   make the performance/parsing more efficient. The label fields should
   be placed in the end of the structure. The attendees adopted the 
   request by nodding heads. Please speak up on the mailing list if
   there are any opinions regarding the change.

discussion:
A discussion of message length was brought up earlier on the mailing
list. The message length field currently includes the gsmp header and 
the gsmp payload, but doesn't cover vendor specific fields following.
The idea is to cover the complete message including vendor specific
data. The consensus in the room (nodding heads) was that the suggestion
should be progressed. The matter needs to be discussed on the list
and implementers need to experiment.

There was a recommendation the the WG hold another last call on these 
changes since some of them, especially the message length definition 
could be seen as a substantive technical change.
The WG accepted this recommendation.

The kullgren draft changes should be folded into draft-ietf-gsmp-10
together with the length field. There will be a working group 
last call issued on changes between -09 and -10 version as soon
as -10 is available. Kenneth will send out a new revison after 
the meeting.

There were no other business to be discussed. And the chairs asked
the crowd to read and comment the documents.

Session was adjourned.