The SUB-IP Area Meeting (sub-ip) Tuesday, November 19 at 1930-2200 ================================= CHAIRS: Scott Bradner Bert Wijnen notes by: Dimitri Papadimitriou AGENDA: 1. area status ADs/chairs - 15 Mins Bert Wijnen: ----------- Made report on CCAMP WG: - 3 Proposed Standards's - but lot's of work still to be done (pointing out the current protection and restoration design team efforts, for instance) Scott Bradner: ------------- Made a report on the following working group: GSMP WG - IPO WG - MPLS WG - PPVPN WG Bert Wijnen: ----------- Made a report on the TE WG (hint: no report from Jim Boyle, Ed Kern and other WG chairs) Marco Carugi: ------------ In PPVPN WG, two documents are under IESG review (L3 requirements and L3 framework), generic requirements id has been produced according to Yokohama (requirements related to the stability for the internet etc.). L3 VPN space : - plan to go soon to WG last call for 2547bis and VR solution ids - IPSEC CE-based solution : waiting for update from the author to progress further and fill this gap in L3 space Aggressive work plan is ongoing in L2 VPN space : - L2 requirements have been enhanced, functional documents and list of L2 candidate solutions to be worked (L2 DT meeting planned after Atlanta) - cooperation under definition with IEEE 802.1 ========================================================== 2. options for the future of the area ADs - 15 Mins Alex Zinin: ---------- Slides SUB-IP real glass versus Hour glass model: Status of the SUB-IP area, what "seems" to be really in use wrt to initial expectations Alex provided a presentation on the hour glass model Bert Wijnen: The hour-glass model was discussed in the SUB-IP directorate and discussions/results were published to the SUB-IP mailing list (id-summary) with rough consensus on the details & the common part of the documents; give as example the traffic engineering working group efforts with its requirements for restoration are used by the CCAMP Design Team and when the MPLS WG recovery framework was done they were used to evaluate how this framework addresses the requirements of the design team of the TE WG ... but after more thoughts, it is not clear there was a real consensus on the Hour glass model, at least people seem to be working differently. Eric Rosen: ---------- Is astonished to hear that the "hourglass model" was believed by anyone to represent a rough consensus. To most of the people doing real work in the sub-ip area, the hourglass model never made any sense at all, and certainly did not appear to reflect a good understanding of the work. If the IESG had really wanted to create a comprehensive architecture for this area, they could have done a better job soliciting the help of those who understood the area. Alex Zinin: ---------- Introduce the discussion... Bert Wijnen: ----------- Thinks agreement was achieved ... but it turns out that this didn't appear/was not clearly the case. Alex Zinin: ---------- Show picture: TE WG: does it really work on requirements ? PPVPN WG: work not strictly linked with sub-ip area scope CCAMP WG: control of mpls networks ? majority of the work there not targetted to control mpls networks Alex then explains the "real" model: what happens in reality and the relationship between the working groups and the development of routing extensions at PPVPN WG, CCAMP WG, etc. Kireeti Kompella: ---------------- - This retrospect does not describe the overlap between the wg and the interactions: CCAMP <-> MPLS, thus work on wg charters (does for instance TE WG works on protocols from its charter ?) - The charter for CCAMP WG should be common, currently this wg is not only doing extensions only applicable to optical technologies, application people were initially resulting is no clear separation between optical applications and others - Take the example of LMP which is common but also LMP is also applicable to Sonet/SDH, G.709, etc. the same applies for the routing extensions and that didn't apply to the IPO working group charter so CCAMP WG does also technology specific work (for instance, CCAMP WG deals with GMPLS extensions for G.709 and Sonet/SDH) - Conclusion: don't specify what the model is but what has to be done Bert Wijnen: ----------- Hour glass model was/is a guideline for the work, a structure of the effort to be delivered by the area Vach Kompella: ------------- TE efforts are related to the routing area, but everything (ie any working group) is not necessarily self contained within a single area Alex Zinin: future directions: ---------- Proposal: where to go from now - IPO WG: done ? => Internet area - GSMP WG: done ? => which area ? - TE WG: done ? => OPS area - MPLS WG: how much done ? => RTG area - CCAMP WG: new work ? => RTG area - PPVPN WG: Internet area ? Transport area ? =========================================================== 3. open discussion for all - 30 Mins Paul Hoffman: ----------- Qestions about the consistence of the move of the PPVPN WG and its relationship with the PWE3 WG Scott Bradner: ------------- Explains the reason why PWE3 is in the TSV area, arguments concerning the location and the definition of the PWE3 framework Alex Zinin: ---------- MPLS and CCAMP working groups to be moved into the rtg area: since MPLS is related to internet routing and GMPLS is an extension (or more precisely a super set of MPLS), mentions the relationship of some of the CCAMP WG i-d for a last call through the routing area consent Joe Touch: --------- The same should also apply to the PPVPN working group understanding ? concerning the Layer 2 and its underying model(s) also pointed the relationship with L2TP working group that not be clarified - but seems to agree with the proposal concerning the PPVPN move to the Internet area Marco Carugi: ------------ PPVPN concern: this group looks at vertical solution stacks and client looking at services. The various aspects of the service are in relation with different IETF areas (internet, management, security, operations, routing, transport). It's a quite particular WG in this sense. In addition, charter doesn't allow the development of protocols by theWG (actually, from this perspective, situation in L2 and L3 space cannot be considered the same, the L2 space being a new area for implementations). More than where the WG stays, the main point is to ensure coordination and efficient cooperation with the various protocol-oriented WGs which have to specify, or at least validate, protocols to be used by PPVPN. As an example of relationship with other areas: PPVPN uses MPLS (and MPLS had initially strong presence in the effort), but produces the current requirements and solutions not only in the MPLS sense but also in the IP sense. From this point of view, it makes sense to think about the routing area as well. But looking into the future items to be covered, the most relevant are encapsulation issues, inter-working, pseudo-wire interworking and signaling, etc. Thus, in case a move has really to be done, it would make sense to me to move PPVPN to the TSV area more than to other areas. Alex Zinin: ---------- PPVPN going to RTG was my original idea, but after doing some analysis, we saw PPVPN related to more than just one area. But RTG should have been on the list besides Internet and TSV. Marco Carugi: ------------ Argued/proposed to consolidate methods to have efficient cooperation between different working groups. Yakov Rehkter: ------------- Question about keeping SUB-IP are alive ? for those working groups that are done, they are done... .. what are the problems this (proposed new) model tries to solve ? Scott Bradner: ------------- Believes he is hearing that there is a lot of interest in this work and a long term permanence, staffed by the nomcom Idea to try and deal with overlaps and coordination and different part of this space, and the idea of having a coordination doesn't seem to fly and needs to grow in another area Yakov Rehkter: ------------- Do you try to kill the current efforts ? Scott Bradner: ------------- This doesn't help but also doesn't hurt Yakov Rehkter: ------------- Thus this is not a coordination problem ? Scott Bradner: ------------- This is not a coordination effort/problem but rather a real additional effort to maintain its permanence... But there are no real arguments to kill it or to keep it alive Ron Bonica: ---------- If the SUB-IP area shutdowns, i agree about the proposed grouping of the MPLS WG and GMPLS (meaning CCAMP WG) into the routing area But wonders about the work concentrating with respect to the other generic work Joe Touch: --------- Doesn't feel to be good to move PPVPN WG into to the TSV area but instead into the Internet area ? with the help of an associate AD that would be dedicated to process the associated aspects On the other side, concerning the wire aspects they seem to be more adapted to the Internet area than the transport world Scott Bradner: ------------- How to address then the question of tunneling ? Try to help in achieving coordination between the tunneling technologies, Joe Touch: [i missed this one] --------- Lou Berger: ---------- Previously organisation (unexptected) referring to efforts that didn't fit in any area exactly but crosses with others Nice thing about the SUB-IP area cross the boundary surprises when it happens but allows the work and effort to what happens and thus a comeback would bring to the previous situation Scott Bradner: ------------- Part of the driving forces where driven by the MPLS and PPVPN working group efforts Lou Berger: ---------- Doesn't think it is an organisational issue, but rather related to personal issues from those that do not want to add people to the IESG and an AD per area Here tries to solve an issue of the IESG make-up through an organizational issue (appearance), and probably if this split is accepted we will have to come back to the SUB-IP area organisation Scott Bradner: ------------- Not related to personall problems, but agrees that SUB-IP area make things and people very busy - while Scott already busy with the Transport area - Lou Berger: ---------- Doesn't understand the selection of the existing area Try to solve the type of work we do and not who is doing what, this seems to be much more useful from his point of view Kireeti Kompella: ---------------- Difficult to find grouping of these areas, for instance IPO wg, what does it bring "ip over optical" ? but this WG rather speaks about modeling aspects, carrier req's, etc. but not really about IP-over-foo Scott Bradner: ------------- Thus where should IPO WG go ? Kireeti Kompella: ---------------- Difficutly to find a clear response, but the routing area seems possible for each of them; in any case MPLS and the CCAMP WG to be positioned within the routing area Scott Bradner: ------------- TE WG came from the OPS area Bert Wijnen: ----------- But their scope has changed from back then (when it was supposed to document current practices and approaches). Kireeti Kompella: ---------------- Agrees, pointing then the need for a dedicated area Harald Alvestrand: ----------------- Something like a directorate ? Bert Wijnen: ----------- The directorate has helped a lot in the early days, but this SUB-IP area directorate is used less and less. Lot's of interaction w/ routeing area and others outside (bodies) and thus has ultimately led to less use of the SUB-IP area directorate On the other side, the area responsible AD's can build any specific directorates if needed. Harald Alvestrand: ----------------- Most of the working groups of the IETF do no fit exactly in one area thus nothing new here, we need to make sure that we discuss together b/w technologies that needs to be discussed together and that further generates to put them in an area Paul Hoffman: ----------- Another part time job ? and probably the need for new AD's and the relationship with the nomcom also in relationship with the current nomcom process Scott Bradner: ------------- Concerning the nomcom it is too late for expecting two additional slots for this year Avri Doria ---------- Based on some experience with nomcom, Avri claims that deciding not to make it an area because it means extra work for the nomcom was not a valid reason. Her reasons why the sub-ip area should remain: commonality of purpose and focus. Kireeti Kompella: ---------------- If the working groups do not belong to a specific area then just have working groups Scott Bradner: ------------- I once proposed to have only have three areas: general, security and operational area - but it did not get any support George Swallow: -------------- Resistance and complement for their view of changes lot's of synergies between the working groups but points to the problems of the new ad's and the fact they have to work together Vach Kompella: ------------- Don't you think two new (full-time) ADs would help in speeding the work, given that we always hear in the plenaries how much the ADs are overloaded? Steve Throwbridge: ----------------- As nomcom member, difficult to know how the SUB-IP would behave over the time Kireeti Kompella: [i missed this one] ---------------- Scott Bradner: ------------- 1) how many in favor of splitting the work ? very few people 2) how many in favor of sub-ip ? seems to have much more support from the attendees (vast majority)