Subject: [Isis-wg] meeting minutes ...

From: Tony Przygienda <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 13:47:30 +0100

Thanks to Danny for taking the notes and shipping them of
in fully-formatted form already ;-)
	
		- tony

IS-IS WG Minutes - IETF 55, Atlanta GA
November 19, 2002
Chair: Tony Przygienda <[email-masked]>
Recorder: Danny McPherson <[email-masked]>

===================================================
Milestones, Administrativia, Etc..
Tony Przygienda <[email-masked]>

3 RFCs Published:

 o Optional Checksums - 3358
 o TLV Codepoint List - 3359
 o 3-way Handshake - 3373

Draft Status

 o MIB (-10) - will be ready for LC Dec 2002 ?
 o Cryptographic Authentication (-03) - AD COmments
 o GMPLS Extensions(-14) - AD COmments
 o TE Extensions (-04)- AD COmments
 o IPv6 (-03) - Last Call Dec '02
 o M-ISIS (-05) - Last Call Passed 11/11/02 
 o Extended Ethernet Frame (-01) - AD Comments
 o Restart (-02) - Last Call Dec '02
 o P2P over LAN (-01) - Mar '03
 o 256+ Fragments (-02) - Waiting for Publication
 o Auto Encapsulation (-02) - Mar '03
 o Administrative Tags (-01) - Last Call Dec '02
 o Propietary TLVs (-00) - Last Call Dec '02
 o Interoperable IP Networks (-00) - LC Dec '02
 o Interoperable Networks (-00) - Last Call Dec '02

===================================================
+256 LSP Fragments
Amir Hermelin <[email-masked]> 

 o Pending issue 
 o Comments since Yokohama have been integrated
 o In WG & AD/IESG Last Call
 o In RFC Editor
 o Document Issue:  Has normative reference to TE draft
   regarding sub-TLV processing.  Until ISIS-TE draft is
   published this draft remains in queue and won't be 
   published.

Question:  Any suggestions?
Amir Hermelin: If this draft doesn't progress because of 
  TE draft progress then we need to find solution.
AD/Alex Zinin: ADs will do everything possible to help 
  publish the draft once new revision is completed.
Christian Hopps:  v6 draft is on hold for same reason as well.

Amir Hermelin: Need TE draft to progress.

===================================================
Multi-Topology Routing in ISIS (-05) 
Tony Przygienda <[email-masked]>

 o Management color of sub-TLV gone
 o Genernic SPF and acording bit gone
 o Forwarding scenarios considerations added
 o Network management considerations added
 o Overload bit capability per MT added
 o MT #4 reserved for IPv6

===================================================
IETF/JTC1 Agreement on IS-IS Protocol Development
AD/Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>

Problem Statement:

 o Current Approach:
   - Publish as INFO
   - Submit to ISO/IEC JTC1
 o Problems:
   - We are not putting Internet-related mechanisms on
     STD track
   - Derivitive work cannot go STD either -- ref problem
   - Other SDOs can't cte our docs
   - No registry to manage TLV namespace

Question to WG: Does anyone object that these are real problems?
Kireeti Kompella: Managing TLVs, perhaps not, but STD issue is 
  problem for lots of folks.
Tony Przygienda: Concur with Kireeti.  Registry, secure a 
  solution.  Small number of implementing companies.  Information
  is more than enough.  STD track just generates lots of work for
  standards weenies!  Doesn't need to be published, it's reality!
Kireeti Kompella:  Let Alex Zinin do all the work and I'll
  be happy.  Interaction with JTC1 and we have the ability to make
  STD track and reclassify RFCs great, otherwise, lots of reviews
  and more work is waste of time.
AD/Alex ZInin:  If we have rules then we can do this, but the
  WG can't "reclassify", documents will have to be resubmitted
  to the STD process.
Tony Przygienda:  Lots of work & time, irrelevant, and will
  hang there until it expires.

AD/Alex Zinin:  If WG agrees that it's a waste of time should 
  he talk to JTC1 and try to do something useful?
Tony Przygienda: It's useful if they want to cite our documents
  while they remain INFO, otherwise, if they need to be STD
  forget it.  Lot of work.
AD/Alex Zinin: Let them do the work.  Primary work is to get 
  stuff done, this is getting WAY in the way of getting stuff 
  done.  Maybe you'll find enough people to get the work done 
  but maybe not.
Kireeti Kompella:  Current process as INFO still requires lots of
  reviews.  However, we have this problem and it's reviewed as INFO
  but treated like STD and now we're repeating the work.  If 
  workload can be reduced in STD process but otherwise, forget it.

Kireeti Kompella: Are other bodies interested in taking our
  submissions?
AD/Alex Zinin:  Submit means we're handing documents to them 
  and serving as document editor.  Start fast-track process within
  JTC.  As far as are they interested in our input, yes.  As far
  as getting the work done themselves, he doubts.  First revision
  of submission of external class A liasion submssion is in 
  original submission. Follwing submissions are reformatted and 
  they handle it from there.

AD/Alex Zinin:  Do we want to have responsibility?  Do we 
  want to have an agreement with them or not?  
Kireeti Kompella: It's black and white.  If you have agreement
  but requires STD then we have to go back and work.  Don't
  like that.

AD/Alex Zinin: Goal of agreement is to give JTC1 ownsership of 
  spec but us owning Internet-related technologies.  This 
  agreement does not create more work than other WGs already have.
  It creates more work than what we currently have.
Kireeti Kompella: It requires that we go back and redo things we've
  already done.  INFO drafts have been treated like STD track and
  it's just creeating more work.

AD/Alex Zinin:  Can't make exception for IS-IS with real STD work, 
  else Yakov or others will come and say "Why do I have to do this, 
  IS-IS didn't?".

Back to Approach:

Basics:

 o IETF is the Place for STD Internet-related stuff
 o ISO/IEC JTC1 owns the protocol spec

 o Not trying to take the protocol over
 o Define Internet-specific IS-IS Extensions

[Other Stuff]
  - bunch of details  

 o  IANA Create and maintain IS-IS registry

Internet-specific IS-IS Extensions: 

 o We specify based on the Core IS-IS definition
  - bunch of details  
 o We specify based Internet-specific Extensions
  - bunch of details  

 o Defacto Implementation Agreements
  - bunch of details  

Work Separation: JTC1 will not standardize Internet-
  specific stuff,

Ask IANA to create and maintain an IS-IS registry 
  (until JTC creates one).

Discussion:

 o On-the-border cases
 o Add some text on how IETF comments can be distributed 
   within JTC1 
 o Need IETF -> JTC1 document mapping
 o Project editor for JTC1 submissions
   - In the loop of JTC1 process, can mostly take place in 
     email.

AD/Alex Zinin:  Do we want this agreement or not?
Tony Przygienda:  Then you need to Make a motion for each of 
  the components, or do you want it to be made as a single 
  component.
 
AD/Alex Zinin: Does the WG believe this agreement is useful?
and should be progressed?

Who is in favor?:
[~15 hands in the audience are raised]

Who is against?:
[0 hands in the audience are raised]

Meeting adjourned.

_______________________________________________
Isis-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg