CURRENT_MEETING_REPORT_ Reported by Mark Knopper/Merit Network Minutes of the Extensions to OSI for use in the Internet BOF (OSIEXTND) Dave Katz presented the following slides to the group. Comments interjected by the recording secretary are [bracketed]. Motivation Plenty of technical work to do Expertise is here Work will benefit from IETF process Liaison relationship likely Liaison relationship likely to take awhile Experience shows that work transfers Goals Functional, tested protocols Further deployment of OSI suite SINGLE technical specification Progression into ISO/ITU communities Backward compatibility Concentrate on Network Layer Open specifications on line [There should be significant liaison with TUBA working group for application and transport layers over CLNP.] Mechanism Zero or more new working groups Maintain unofficial relationships with ISO, national bodies Utilize official relationships when they are in place Forward work through these channels [There are good channels even with unofficial relationships.] Cooperation between IETF, IS bodies likely Liaison Status Memorandum of understanding between ISOC, ISO to be written Liaison class (A or C) unclear (does it matter?) [Many people agreed that the relationship status does not matter. Pragmatic technical interactions are most important. What role would other standards organizations take in this arrangement?] [NOOP, TUBA and ANSI X3S3.3 committees are doing work.] [Jack Houldsworth was present, representing ISO/JTC1. He works for ICL. JTC1 has endorsed the idea of relationship. Jack can carry documents from IETF to ISO using informal liaison. ISO is very keen to get this work done.] Standards Status [(for network layer)] Multicast Addressing to IS in Seoul [will include group addressing semantics] CLNP, IS-IS PDAM ballot closing Early work on scope control [including automated methods of constraining recipient sets for multicast] No work on routing [yet] [Multicast IS-IS needed. The intent is to leverage off of ongoing work in IETF.] IDRP to IS in Seoul [The rate at which documents progress is proportional to the amount of work the authors and their organizations are willing to undertake to manage the process. At IETF there is more implementation up front. That is also beginning to happen with ISO standards. There is a timeline convergence happening between ISO and IETF.] Possible areas of work Multicast (network layer) anycast multicast routing structured addressing ES-IS CLNP extensions QoS fixes [How useful are QoS features in existing spec? 2nd edition CLNP ballot to be discussed in Seoul] provider loose source route fix loose source route header compression MTU discovery flows, resource reservation IS-IS extensions Multiprotocol [Part of original IS-IS WG charter] Metric expansion IDRP extensions New attributes [IDRP has the capability of tunneling new attributes through routers that don't understand them, if appropriate] ES-IS extensions System ID in address administration [for dynamic address assignment. Allows host to drive address assignment process.] IDRP/IS-IS interaction PPP LCP/NCP for OSI network layer Host configuration protocols EON Mobility Large network support CLNP routing [Radia Perlman of DEC has written documents on CLNP over SMDS. This is an internet draft. There is another document that is SMDS- specific available from SMDS Interest Group.] The group agreed that a letter should be written to ISO, based on the presentation and discussion, stating that the IETF has sufficient expertise to contribute to these areas. Dave Katz and Dave Piscitello will draft a document. This work spans about six IETF working groups. BGP and IPIDRP Working Groups are meeting jointly (IDRP is BGP5). IDRP for SIP is being considered. Phill Gross expressed concern over the apparent danger of having different IETF and ISO standards for protocols. ISO has more precedence for accepting standards from other groups without change. IETF tends to change or rewrite protocols before acceptance. Peter Furniss said that the Internet-Draft process will be appreciated by ISO. Mark Knopper has created a discussion list, osiextnd@merit.edu. Those interested in being added to the list should send a request to osiextnd-request@merit.edu. Phill Gross suggested to identify work that could be done by existing IETF working groups, as well as that which could be done by this group if it is to become a working group. CLNP over Large Public Data Networks (LPDN) is an area which needs consideration. Much of the work is done. ES-IS and IS-IS protocols over LPDNs needs further work. Note that as of this IETF, the IPLPDN Working Group has ended their work. Perhaps CLNPLPDN could be handled as a BOF with identified base documents. The consensus of the BOF attendees was that a working group should be formed from these ideas, and relationships should be pursued with ISO. Dave Piscitello and Dave Katz have drafted a letter and will send it to the IESG, IAB, and ISO (through Jack Houldsworth). Attendees Nick Alfano alfano@mpr.ca Bernt Allonen bal@tip.net Rebecca Bostwick bostwick@es.net Jim Bound bound@zk3.dec.com Ross Callon rcallon@wellfleet.com George Chang gkc@ctt.bellcore.com A. Lyman Chapin lyman@bbn.com Richard Colella colella@nist.gov Dave Cullerot cullerot@ctron.com Toerless Eckert Toerless.Eckert@informatik.uni-erlangen.de Dino Farinacci dino@cisco.com Peter Ford peter@goshawk.lanl.gov Peter Furniss p.furniss@ulcc.ac.uk Phillip Gross pgross@ans.net Chris Gunner gunner@dsmail.lkg.dec.com Susan Hares skh@merit.edu Denise Heagerty denise@dxcoms.cern.ch Jack Houldsworth J.Houldsworth@ste0906.wins.icl.co.uk Chris Howard chris_howard@inmarsat.org Geoff Huston g.huston@aarnet.edu.au David Jacobson dnjake@vnet.ibm.com Philip Jones p.jones@jnt.ac.uk Cyndi Jung cmj@3com.com Anders Karlsson sak@cdg.chalmers.se Dave Katz dkatz@cisco.com Sean Kennedy liam@nic.near.net Mark Knopper mak@merit.edu Rajeev Kochhar rajeev_kochhar@3com.com Ton Koelman koelman@stc.nato.int John Krawczyk jkrawczy@wellfleet.com Robin Littlefield robin@wellfleet.com David Marlow dmarlow@relay.nswc.navy.mil David O'Leary doleary@cisco.com Christian Panigl christian.panigl@cc.univie.ac.at Alex Reijnierse a.a.reijnierse@research.ptt.nl Victor Reijs reijs@surfnet.nl Georg Richter richter@uni-muenster.de John Scudder jgs@merit.edu Keith Sklower sklower@cs.berkeley.edu John Stewart john@bunter.fdc.iaf.nl Kamlesh Tewani ktt@arch2.att.com Richard Thomas rjthomas@bnr.ca Marcel Wiget wiget@switch.ch Douglas Williams dougw@ralvmg.vnet.ibm.com Rachel Willmer rachelw@spider.co.uk Attachment: Letter to the IESG and IAB To: IESG, IAB From: David Piscitello (Bellcore), David Katz (Cisco) RE: Recommendations from"Extensions to OSI for use in the Internet" (osiextnd) BOF regarding future CLNP activities in the IETF. During the "Extensions to OSI for use in the Internet (OSIEXTND)" BOF, attendees identified a number of areas where the IETF might apply its experience and expertise to complement and enhance the ongoing work within ISO/IEC and the ITU-TS relating to ISO/IEC 8473 (CLNP). David Katz and David Piscitello were chartered by the BOF to annotate the list with Internet activities and standards that are or might be relevant to these areas. The results and recommendations are as follows. 1) Multicasting (network layer) ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6/WG2 is currently working on a multicast architecture, addressing scheme and protocol for CLNP. The IETF has made considerable progress in the area of multicast (see in particular RFCs 1112, 1458) within several of its working groups. A working group is likely to be formed within the IETF to address "anycast" (the ability to deliver traffic to one member of a group), multicast routing, the use of structured multicast addresses, and multicast extensions to the ES-IS protocol for CLNP. 2) Extensions to ISO/IEC 8473 and its routing architecture: The IETF has acquired considerable CLNP deployment experience. The coordinating body for developing a CLNP infrastructure for the Internet is the Network OSI Operations working group (NOOP). Based on the deployment of CLNP and more recently, TCP/UDP atop CLNP (TUBA), the IETF has identified several extensions to CLNP (improvements to quality of service support, provider loose source routing, amendments to the current partial source routing parameter); Intradomain IS-IS protocol (multiprotocol support, routing metric expansion); Interdomain routing protocol (new attributes, IDRP/IS-IS interaction), and ES-IS (provision of system identification in address administration). OSIEXTND will seek working group status within the IETF to continue this work. 3) Link and network layer control protocols for operation of CLNP over point-to-point subnetworks The IETF has developed a set of protocols that enable link negotiation, authentication, and operation of multiple network layer protocols (IP, IPX, CLNP, etc.) over point-to-point subnetworks. This work exists either as Internet standards or standards in progress (see in particular RFCs 1331 and 1337). Attendees to OSIEXTND recommend that the IESG/IAB/ISOC encourage ISO/IEC and ITU-TS to study these standards as potential future joint standards between the ISOC, ISO/IEC, and ITU-TS. 4) CLNP header compression and MTU discovery The IETF has developed a method of compressing IP headers for low-speed serial links to maximize throughput across such links (RFC 1144); equivalent methods need to be developed for CLNP based on the experience acquired by the IETF. Similarly, the IETF has developed a method for determining the maximum transmission unit size that may be used between IP hosts connected across a multi-hop internetwork route (RFC 1191); an equivalent means should be developed for deriving the maximum subnetwork service data unit size for CLNP. Attendees to OSIEXTND expect that a working group will be formed to address these mechanisms and solicit contributions in these areas. 5) CLNP "flows", resource reservation The IETF is examining the notions of flows and resource reservation (packet sequencing, allocation of bandwidth, processing, etc. to source-destination pairs across an internet). Attendees to OSIEXTND believe that the work developed for IP is very likely to be directly applicable to CLNP, and expect to participate actively in this work. 6) Host configuration protocols The IETF has standards in progress that allow hosts to be installed and configured with a minimum of manual intervention. Similar work is being pursued in ISO/IEC. Attendees to OSIEXTND believe that aspects of the work developed for IP are likely to be applicable to CLNP, and expects that a working group will be formed to enhance functionality in this area. 7) Mobility The IETF is currently exploring methods of supporting host mobility. Attendes to OSIEXTND believes that the approaches being developed can be directly applied to CLNP, and expect to participate actively in this work. Attendees to OSIEXTND believe that the work outlined in items (4) - (7) is very likely to be directly applicable to CLNP, and recommend that the IESG/IAB/ISOC encourage ISO/IEC and ITU-TS to study and possibly participate in this work. Respectfully, ________________ ________________ David Piscitello David Katz