Skip to main content

Minutes IETF106: raw
minutes-106-raw-00

Meeting Minutes Reliable and Available Wireless (raw) WG
Title Minutes IETF106: raw
State Active
Other versions plain text
Last updated 2019-12-10

minutes-106-raw-00
Meeting        :   IETF106 Wednesday November 20th, 2019
Venue          :   Raffles City Convention Centre, Singapore
Time           :   10:00 to 12:00, during Morning session I (120 minutes)
Location       :  
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/floor-plan?room=hullet#raffles-city-convention-center
Chairs         :   Erik Nordmark <nordmark@sonic.net>
                   Rick Taylor <rick@tropicalstormsoftware.com>

Responsible AD :   DEBORAH BRUNGARD <db3546@att.com>
Live minutes   :   https://etherpad.ietf.org/p/notes-ietf-106-raw
Live feeds     :   https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/agenda/

Other URLs     :   https://tools.ietf.org/wg/raw
               :   https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/raw
               :   https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/raw

on Wednesday November 20th from 10:00 to 12:00, during Morning session I in
room Canning

Minutes
----------
Ethan Grossman
(Dominique Barthel as a backup)

Intro, why this BoF   5mn  The chairs, unique attendance (wireless) new
problems (RAW)

Use cases and reqs    10mn Carlos on stage, show unique use cases, demonstrate
usefulness
                           draft-bernardos-raw-use-cases
                           Select the particular use case of indistrial
                           automation as illustrat
Uma Chunduri: Layer 1,2 shown - is there layer 3 work?
Erik Nordmark: Multiple layers of technologies.
Uma Chunduri: 6TiSCH is layer 1
EN: Is about layer 3, like DetNet, which presumes different data plane (layer
2) technologies.

Problem Statement     35mn Pascal on stage, what needs to be solved, position
vs. other WGs
                           draft-pthubert-raw-problem-statement
Janos: Discussion now or later?
EN: Now is fine, but if open-ended save til later.

IEEE Status           10mn Ganesh, progress and unique features in .ax and .eb
towards RAW Juan Carlos Zuniga: Is this MAC going to work on different PHYs?
Ganesh: From what I know it is for the 5-7 GHz bands

Janos Farkas: Reiterate that in IEEE there is integration of TSN into 802.11,
resulting in subnet technology that could be used for DetNet.

Technologies draft    5mn  Pascal generalizing over abstracted technology for L3
                                          Niels at the mike on LDACS
Pascal Thubert: There are additional slides on LDACS if you want more info.
                           draft-thubert-raw-technologies

Other drafts      5mn  chairs, demonstrate interest and activity

Charter  Discussion      35mn Erik and/or Rick holding the pen, edit and drive
the discussion
                           Demonstrate tractable problem, actual IETF topics,
                           no overlap

Lou Berger: Path selection: aspects: fast forwarding decision based on lower
layer state. We do lots of things like this in IETF, can't say we haven't done
it. Like ECMP. In DetNet do PREOf, nailed up version. In DetNet definition,
allows for network coding, forwarding layer based on link probability of
delivery. Again long history of this. EN: Agree.

Rick Taylor: DetNet has lots of work to do, is DetNet really interested in
working on this? Purpose today is to determine if there is enough interest in
this work in other WGs, e.g. CCAMP.

LB: DetNet wrapping up data plane drafts, including def of PREOF. Do we have
time now, as we are rechartering? Probably we will have time, but is it the
right place is another question. Definitely have people sitting around who are
not interested in the particular technology e.g. optical.

Pascal: We expect to draw a wireless crowd to RAW - so far, Detnet hasn't
gotten people interested in this [wireless?] so far. So might be split between
wired and wireless sections. RAW can focus on one particular thing, but
interact with other WGs e.g. DetNet. Pascal has tried to get DetNet interested
in wireless, but could not get support. Can see what the focus in the Detnet
room is, different than radio people.

Lou: With many technologies, do we want to create specific methods for specific
envitornments, or a toolkit that is more general? Identify what is more common
so can apply internet technologies. Want more commonalities, not less. Is this
too much of a taylored solution for wireless, or better to have common
mechanisms between technologies?

Lou: In DetNet, have always had interest in wireless, but had to do basics
first. Now have done last call on data plane, ready to take on more if this is
the right place.

Janos: What is the ultimate goal? To provide deterministic networking across
wired and wireless, agree we need to identfy gaps and fix them. Service
sublayer, then forwarding sublayer, maybe this is a lower layer, so could do in
DetNet from top down perspective. Up to now, sounded like wireless work
proposed for DetNet was an extension to 6TiSCH. DLEP can help with APIs. 802
subnet improving to the point where could treat as a data plane from DetNet
perspective (?) Could do this work in DetNet and other groups such as CCAMP.

Rick: How many people intersted in going to DetNet to solve this? (not too
many?) Michael Richardson Could be because DetNet working on differnt things
now, so isn't the time to go there.

Erik: Where to do new work items, which depend on radio people? Up to ADs to
decide.

Stuart Card: IETF has historically left airborn networking to airborn
communications companies who only know how to do links. Need to address Ning
Zong: Would like to see architecture in more details. How is this based on an
L3 abstraction? Hard to agree on this charter w/o this info.

EN: Would have liked this in today's preso, as opposed to in future work?
Ning Zong: ??

Lou: Not going to take on the work of radio guys, DLEP enhancmenet in MANET, 
Architecture, framework, how to apply to a given environment. Whether do in new
WG or as collaborative between existing WGs. Just need to decide where.

Rick: requesting a home to do this work.

Tim Costello: Good work. Regarding other WGs, maybe could make other WGs more
friendly to wireless?

Rick: ??

Janos: Don't want to see new architecture coming out of thisk should be in
DetNet.

Fatai Zhang: PCE said to be out of scope on slide, but how can you do it
without affecting that. Should make PCE fast. Also comment on pb statement,
comparison

Rick: REsponsibility is not defined here, just saying need separate time scale
for path selection - where it happens is to be determined.

Erik: Time scale is related to link type - if have unreliable link at varying
speeds, maybe could not react fast enough.

David Black: Work items: first and last two items relation to DetNet: First is
describing how it is different than DetNet, can be independent. But redundancy
may overlap with DetNet PREOF. Don't want to charter separately from DetNet
version, or separate for wired wireless.

Erik: Dont want differenet arch, just add missing peices for wireless to
DetNet. Separate group to do that?

Lou: Regarding architecture, agree so far just concepts. Have one solution
today, but maybe #4 (PAREO) could be done in DetNet, bring a proposal.
Regarding OAM, should do in DetNet to avoid duplication. DetNet is not "wired"
it is any medium.

Rick: Our intent is to work with other groups. If we show up at DetNet with 9
drafts tomorrow with a group of people who want to work on them.

Lou: #3, 4, complementary to what is being done in Detnet. Others can be
accommodated. Want commonality, that is what IP is all aout. Not helpful to
have multiple solutions.

Jari Arkko: What is market demand for this work? would like to see more on
this. Clearly demand for low latency and so on, but maybe this is mostly layer
2 work? Are we creating a system on top of this? Choice between work done at L2
vs L3. If bridging multiple standards need IP. Layer 2 know more about state of
medium, not so much at L3. So maybe this is less IETF work, and leave some of
this to radio manufacturers?

Rick: Question is whether this is an IETF project? Building across multiple
technologies. So there is a problem for IETF there.

Jari Arkko: Is there a market for this?

Rick: I work for Airbus, our industry needs this.

Thomas Graeupl: Hard to find people at IETF to talk to about standards for
aeronautics communications. Having a focussed WG would help.

Pascal: Must have multi-hop routing at L3, can't rely on L2 meshes. .. ??
Neils: Need to do good channel measurements, important for UNIs. RAW WG Good
opportunity to bring in new people to IETF to do channel measurements.

Uma Chunduri: Is this a new data plane? Not DetNet.

Erik: Hum for yes or no: Problem statement and work items are sufficiently
clear. (Seems most feel is clear, but maybe a few not clear).

Solve in IETF: Agree should be in IETF.

Support for a separate working group or not: (about 50/50??) but a lot of
abstention

Deborah Brungard: If do WG for only first 2 work items, informational, do poll
again: For/against was maybe 80 vs 20.

Who in this room would

Maybe if only do those two, isn't interesting enough?

Pascal: PSE is an extension to DetNet. What if DetNet delegates this work to
RAW?

Erik: If start work on this, whether in RAW or other groups, how many will work
on this? Show of hands. Result: about 12.

Willing to review this work: Maybe 30 or so.
There is a RAW list, please use it if you have further comments.
Adjourn.