Routing Area Directorate Review (Deborah) ------------------------------ Deborah reviewed the slides.Ten reviews have been completed since February. Adrian: This has been really valuable. Plan to start ramping up and having more reviews. Some people have expressed concerns that they will not have expertise but rather pick which draft to review. I'd prefer not to do that as that was the old system and it didn't really work well. This is working pretty good as it is now. Loa: Question on procedure. Does this review take place before we send it in for review - is this asked by the WG chairs? Adrian: Not really, the Chairs can ask for an early review. As ADs we are using it for IETF last call and doing the publication process. But you can ask as Chair. Stewart: And it's not just Routing Area documents, it's other areas which have a routing component in them. Routing Area Working Group Reports ---------------------------------- MANET () - No one here. MPLS (Loa)- First meeting will be after this slot, a ridiculous crowded agenda, problem handling that. Discussing how to change that for next time. We have more new drafts then we ever had before. Making steady progress. Two would of made rfcs, almost. Making progress. MPLS-TP have to discuss for future how to progress. OSPF (Adrian presented slide)- Not meeting this time around. Plan to meet in Beijing. Have one new RFC. Looking at Multi-Instance/Transport Instance draft, not sure will be any implementations. Will check with CCAMP on this. Working with CCAMP on WSON. PCE (Julien) Had discussion on charter. No major changes. Have two new RFCs (P2MP requirements, PCE monitoring tools). PIM (Mike) -Just had an RFC published. Two in WG last call. Several new ones coming up. Considering 4601bis. PWE3 (Andy) - As Loa said, have many drafts coming in. Full agenda. Reminded people with slides to get them in as we need to use webex. Three issues (refer to slide) to be discussed. Discussing to relax CW as being mandatory for MPLS-TP PWs and the implications. Plan to conduct an implementation survey for preferred CC-type for VCCV. Will discuss tomorrow. ROLL (JP) - We'll reaching a key milestone since we've been chartered and started working on the new protocol, RPL. We'll just completing last call. During the last six months asked for alot of external reviews and had two interop tests. We got some feedback and fixed some issues. It's a major milestone. We used the ticketing system - I'll talk later on that. RTGWG (Alia) - Progressing composite links draft. Good draft on loop free alternatives in access. And a draft on aggregation will poll the wg on. SIDR (Sandy) - Meeting Wednesday afternoon. Couple of agenda items on keys and roll over and use in routers themselves. Should be interesting. Several drafts were updated since last meeting and last called. Not discussed here at this meeting. Will be updating. VRRP (Mukesh) - Published 5798, finished MIB Last Call. When completed, we are finished and can recharter. BFD (Jeff) - We were to have a short lived WG, but we have now published 6 rfcs. Still going strong. Will be rechartering. CCAMP (Deborah) Meeting tomorrow afternoon and Wednesday. Full agenda. Tomorrow will discuss WSON, Wednesday on OTN. No new RFCs. Several drafts in IESG processing. Forces (Jamal) - Fully loaded agenda. Two documents going to IESG, two more still doing, expect to shut down once finish them. IDR (Sue) - Three WG drafts almost ready for IESG. We've had alot of discussion, expect more drafts to be proposed. ISIS (Dave) - Three drafts in IESG. Two more almost done. Layer 2 work doing with trill and 802, will be discussed tomorrow. KARP (Joel) - Making some progress. Need to identify which of the drafts that people are most interested in. We're Moving a little slower than like. L2VPN (Shane) - Three drafts in IESG hands. Two have discuss comments need to address. Three others should go soon to IESG. Two new areas discussing how to handle- ETREE, Ethernet VPN work. Discussing with ADs how to go forward with that. L3VPN (Ben) - We are working on rechartering. ADnits: Things ADs usually complain about (chairs) -------------------------------------------------- Adrian reviewed slides. Should refer to the Routing Area Wiki for more information. Intended as an aid to get an ID approved more quickly. Manageability Considerations ---------------------------- Adrian introduced. PCE has been trying this. Ops area trying to make more general. Experience from PCE (J. Meuric) ------------------------------- Julien presented slides. JP: comment - since you mentioned ROLL, this looks like a pain to add this section, for us it looked like about 20 pages, but in the end, you learn alot, and it really helps to improve. It's really a positive effort. Dave Harrington - I'm Transport AD, author of 5706. It's informational now, not a BCP because some people don't want to do it, so not mandatory in Ops. We wrote it because the PCE effort was very successful. Maybe Routing area wants to make it mandatory, but we didn't make it mandatory. Adrian - the RFC does have a wider content. Who has direct experience of putting this manageability in a document? only 4 or 5 hands. As Julien says, it is perceived as a huge burden, but it's really not. I'd like the WG Chairs to look at 5706 and see how want to do in your WG to improve the document and help to speed it thru the IESG for Ops area comments. OAM Workshop Proposal and Plans (Adrian) ---------------------------------------- Presented slide. There's a workshop being discussed in the Ops area meeting. Probably in October. It's limited to the forwarding plane (control plane and management plane are out of scope). IAB and IESG will review for papers to be presented. Limited space at meeting for those not presenting a paper. Thinking about Congestion (D. Black - 10 mins) ---------------------------------------------- Adrian - Introduced topic using slide: What does this mean? Why is it important? David has for a long time been involved in this area. Stewart - David is the PW Advisor on congestion. David B- It's about protecting the network. Because of TCP congestion control, the network has been protected. Adrian- the question to ask yourself, and is asked when going thru IESG review, how would you handle congestion? If you don't know - then know is the time to ask for help on this. John - How about I have some time to think on this before I comment? Adrian - Yes, if you have concerns, you can bring your questions to David or to the Routing Area mailing list. Dave Harrington - I've noticed too more push back on congestion issues in the IESG. Peer to Peer is causing many more problems. Alot of other SDOs are building on IP for their applications and this is causing congestion. So it's not a threat, but you will see as you send documents in for approval, you will get more pushback on congestion questions. Stewart - Do you have any documents on issues more related to the routing area for us. Dave H - No, I really don't know much about it, my other AD and others have done tutorials on congestion control. David B - There's a good document on UDP which was done which is good as a baseline. Luca - I think congestion is very important as a topic to discuss. Maybe the Transport ADs can have a manual on it. To me, people solve it in their own ways. And we can do it that way as the solutions will differ. So it's not that we don't want to deal with congestion, but we want to deal with it such that it fits the application. David B - I mostly agree with you. We want correct operation of the network. If a protocol that will be with TCP then need to consider TCP fairness. Adrian - I think the discussion in PWE was quite informative. As had different people involved, and by adding just a few lines of text, considerably eased the process. Luca - But in PWE, we had a document, but it's fairly dead as there's no interest in it. David B - I know it's dead, but I plan to do more work on it to improve. Luca - The document was trying to do it in a TCP way, but it was not what service providers wanted. David B - But if a PW is not done in a controlled network, then this may be important. Jeff Haas - When we are thinking of congestion should look for also at a message level. It's not really discussed in any draft except BMWG. David B - There are some drafts where the control plane polls at regular intervals, need to write a lower bound number so doesn't poll and cause a problem. Stewart - Unless MPLS-TP where wanting to do every 3.5 ms. David B - Then need a very controlled control channel. Kireeti - But we've done these documents and required sections before and no one reads them. David B - I agree, it's not necessary to have documents and checklist on this. What is important is to just show to the Transport ADs that you have thought about it in your draft. Dave H - As the editor of 5706, the message we got from the IETF was that they didn't want any more required sections like the security section. So you won't see a similar requirement for congestion. David B - as I said before, guidelines for usage of UDP is a good document to start with. Kireeti - I agree it's good to think about congestion, but not because it's required by the ADs. Adrian - Agree. Dave H - Let you know, we are expanding the Transport Directorate. And Security Directorate have a number of good people involved. It's my goal to have all the documents going into telechat to have been reviewed by our Transport Directorate. Then our folks will be more aware of what's going on in the other areas and can help you with this. In the Ops Area and mibs Area Directorate, we found it was needed to do some guidelines for dociment authors. Hopefully our Tranpsort Directorate will work on a similar type of document for you so you have an idea what we are looking for. Kireeti - 5405 (UDP)? Dave Ward - I think we are looking at different assumptions on what we should be looking at. We should discuss what it is that we should be looking for. Stewart - As said, we have different problems which we are trying to solve, so the congestion needs to be application specific. Using the Ticketing System in Your Working Group (JP Vasseur 10 mins) -------------------------------------------------------------------- JP presented the slides. Dave H - I tried a tracking system a few years ago when I was chair and found it was very time consuming. Since that time they have improved the tools and it is much improved. One problem which we had was it left people do editing themselves and automatically put it on the email list. We got too much mail. But otherwise need to have chairs do this manually. JP - Yes, we had questions why not everything on the mailing list becomes a ticket, but we don't necessary want that, we've all learned now more on how to use it. Dave H - We used it more for chair milestones, that's useful. Does it get archived like email lists? JP - I don't know. Dan King - I think Dave's point was good - it is added work but it's good to delegate this to WG Secretaries. Stewart - Should do it to document editors? JP - Some of the feedback that I got, was that it's not so good to use it too often - should be a balance. Dave H - When used it for liaisons - did it separate? Dan - Not really, we have it separated on the wiki. But the tickets are not separate from other ones. Adrian - So JP assumed could not do it for items which are not an id - can do them? Dan - Yes, for liaisons too. Jeff Haas - Should possibly extend and do for other items too, those coming from outside the working group. JP - Yes, good idea. Stewart - Some concerns on how converting multi-issue emails to a ticket? JP - Yes, we let discussion on the email list a bit, then if continue, convert an item to ticket. Dave H - On the tools list, have you submitted these improvements JP - Not yet - planning to do. Open Discussion (15 mins) ------------------------- Adrian - This meeting was a bit different as we spent most of time discussing process items vs. routing items. Was this useful? Some said yes. Ok, if can think ahead of topics, let your ADs know and we can try to arrange. John - Do you know how the room size is done? Adrian - The tool fills it in - others are saying no? Dave H - We will pay more attention to it in the future. Also times you need (start/stop) so as to plan better.