Subject: mpls wg minutes from Vienna

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 17:51:28 +0200

Working group,

I'm embarrassed - there has been a discussion on the
state of the working group minutes. I thought "Glad I did that"!
And forgot about it. Today when I had to check something up
I couldn't find them, not in the IETF site nor in my outbox.
I don't know what happen, I've had an virus problem and also have
changed laptop. But the problem obviously is that they never
got sent.

Please accept my apologize!

Sorry to say that the presenters from the Vienna meeting needs to
resend there slides, since they did go with my old laptop :(

The working group minutes are included.

/Loa
-- 
Loa Andersson

Mobile          +46 739 81 21 64
Email           [email-masked]

MPLS WG, Tuesday July 15 at 9am
--------------------
Scribes / Dave Allan and Tove Madsen

Agenda bashing
--------------
- no comments

Administrivia
-------------
- blue sheets
- note takers

ITU Liaison/Jun Kyun Choi
-------------------------
Mobile IP over MPLS 11/13
  (see slides)
- overview of features
- scope and "out of scope"
- reference architecture
- service scenarios (tunneling, route optimization, binding update,
  hierarchical tunneling)
- overview of other aspects
- status in SG13 (consent in Geneva next week)

Comment from George Swallow : on the status of progressing RSVP over CR-LDP.
Clarification from George: on binding, we will have one solution.

Monique Morrow: What considerations to OAM have you thought about?
A: No inclusion of diagnostics in the document at this time.

Rahual Aggarwal: Not clear to me what kind of feedback you are looking for.
Not clear what has to be done here.
A: Work to be done to bind mobile IP network to the MPLS network.

George: Is there a specific item of work you are looking for, what kind of
response? Is this informational?
A: Mainly informational, this work is kept in the ITU. Would like to
collaborate.

Alex: If you want collaboration, you should publish as one or more drafts
and solicit feedback from the list.

MIB Discussion
--------------
Loa : Since Atlanta we've been driving the MIB authors quite hard. I'd like
to thank those working hard on this. The work is late and this has been a
source of frustration. We are not finished but are pretty close. Send for
IESG review before end of summer.

Bert: The most important thing is the discussion between the authors and the
AD (acting as MIB doctor). Things needed fixing and there were items where
the approach was questioned. Over the last few weeks we've had good
discussion. Meeting all AD/doctor requirements are not completely necessary,
WG consensus is key due to implementation experience etc.

(see Tom Nadeau's slides).
- general updates applied to all MIBs
- overview of changes to individual MIBs

Bert:  Adrian had a list of some 65 nits on the TE MIB and hasn't been able
to check if all of these have been addressed. I've posted compile comments
last night and this morning. Is the plan to recycle a few MIBs?

Tom: I think we'll have to in a few cases. Some comments were too nitty. Most 
of the comments are adressed.

Bert: Would like to see that signed off, chairs need to establish consensus.

Loa: Consensus is problematic. There is a huge consensus in the room, on the
list etc. to get this done now. Not ready to take the MIBs and send to the
IESG. When Adrian/etc. etc satisfied that we've addressed the comments then
I'd like to go. We're 99% ready, lets do the last little bit.

Adrian: Looking to do a point by point review of the emails and finish them
off this week.

Tom: On setting a final deadline, a week, two weeks.

Loa: Don't want shorter than required, what about two weeks? Lets set Aug 1
as the deadline.

Loa: FRR MIB not complete. Pretty much stable. Would like to do a last call
coming out of this meeting.

Tom: There are three implementations of the existing MIB. Have a look on those
before last call.

Loa: You want to do a pass before last call.

Tom: Probably a good idea.

Adrian: Hold up the overview until the new MIBs done?

Loa: Need a respin. 

Tom: Purpose was the base 5 MIBs.

LDP Requirements/ Wai Sum Lai        draft-lai-mpls-mib-rqmts-00
----------------------------------------------------------------
(see slides)
focus on LDP MIBs,
- pm requirements
- fm requirements
Information that would help them engineer resource usage etc. Help with
trouble shooting. Get good linkages with I/F MIB.

Propose meeting requirements be delegated to the MIB authors.

Tom Nadeau: Bunch of points (already discussed on the list). Want to hear
from other operators. IMHO requires protocol changes so needs consensus.
Some points were added to current MIB. Vast majority not addressed in the
absence of other operator feedback.

Loa: These are going into mailing list and has no effect on current MIBs. 
we have to see imapct on future MIBs.

Draft-allan-mpls-a-bit-00
-------------------------
Lots of impedance. (Mainly Kireeti, Rahul and Yakov). Centered around MPLS
PID in general.

Discussion points:
- Is reserved labels and ECMP an issue (to be taken to the list)?
- Is the PW PID applicable to MPLS?
- Effect on whats out there now? (George Swallow)
- Backward copatability? (Thomas Nadeau)
- What processing power do I need? (G.Swallow)
- Where are the changes suggested? In PWE3 or MPLS? (Loa)
- Is IP ok? (G.Swallow) Yes (D. Allan)
- Will rename the MPLS PID to PWE3 PID (Stewart Bryant)

Dave to post a problem statement to the list for discussion.

Draft-swallow-lsr-self-test-00/George Swallow
---------------------------------------------
George walked through the ECMP example of how it gets combinatorial.
Outlined LSR self test as a means of an LSR instigating tests of its own
forwarding table. An extension of LSP Ping.

Adrian: Applicability to RSVP-TE (draft focuses on LDP)?
G.Swallow: yes.

Dave Allan: Concern with requirement to generate a ping transaction per ILM
entry in each LSR.
George: You're making assumptions as to the frequency.
Dave: no. 
Jun Kyun Choi: end to end but no hierarchy?
G.Swallow: Hop by Hop.

Tom Nadeau: Recycles existing forwarding behavior. Already optimized on my
cards.
Loa: Need to go on. Show of hands for making this a WG document. Sufficient
interest to take this to the list.

Multicast Seisho Yasukawa & Rahul Aggarwal
------------------------------------------
Outline of deltas between IP multicast and expectations that can only be met
with addition of QoS.

Overview of joint requirements draft. A short history of this multicast work
was presented.

Establishing P2MP MPLS TE LSPs draft-raggarwa-mpls-p2mp-te-00
Overview of the proposed mechanisms for setup of P2MP LSPs.

- P2MP session object
- Rpe discovery (application dependent)
- Make before break...
- Some FRR applicability
Alex: IPR notification in the draft needs to be sent on to IETF secretary.

"Other proposal" (Allan Kullberg)
--------------
Draft summary presented
Goal is to reconcile approaches, provide a common requirements and problem
statement draft. Targeted for next IETF.

Need WG to confirm inclusion in charter and determine next steps.

Loa: Like the time schedule. Need a short problem statement and milestones
to take to the IESG.
Rahul: I'll send a mail to the mailing list.
Loa: I'll add milestone to charter.

Dimitri: Do you want to see the spectrum of solutions discussed?
George: only want crisp requirements, not a framework document.

RRO Node-ID Subobject; draft ietf mpls nodeid subobject/ JP Vasseur
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Quick overview.

Ongoing implementations and several planned deployments, proposal to move 
the I-D to last call.

George: take it to the list.

Dimitri: Is it really necessary to use an RRO subobject
flag to implement this feature since this i-d takes the use of the
RRO subobject flag up to all but two bits used ? 

Draft vasseur-mpls-loose-path-reopt-02/JP Vasseur
-------------------------------------------------
Conclusion, draft proposes mechanisms that are identified as required in the
TEWG inter-AS requirements document.

George: How to proceed simply needs a discussion between Alex, Kireeti
and charis.

LDP MTU Discovery/Kireeti
-------------------------
- provided some new definitions (hop MTU)
- egress MTU is broken
- transit node decides what downstream MTU is.
- Handling U/F when not supported.
- Revise according to last round of comments, post to last call.

Luca: Please make sure you agree on what MTU is. DO not want more arguments
between Cisco and Juniper.
Kireeti: Definition is in the draft. Needs to be compatible with RSVP.
Please read the definition.

LSP-PING
--------
I've also posted a new version of LSP PING, please comment, if we get no
comments I'll go to last call. (George indicated some comments, short issues
list).

Draft-ietf-mpls-LSP-query-09/Dave Allan
---------------------------------------
Overview of changes as a result of IESG review, including changes (query
payload TLV) that necessitate a WG last call.

George: We'll post it to the list.

Alex: Implementation status?
Dave: We've done some prototyping, but not of the new TLV.

WG Status:/Loa
--------------
We did a start of re-chartering the working group after Atlanta.
Coincided with the discussion/decission on splitting the
Sub-IP Area. Since the charter criteria are (marginally)
different between areas it had to wait. Will restart the process
now.

Meeting concluded.