Minutes IETF120: ccamp: Fri 16:30
minutes-120-ccamp-202407261630-00

CCAMP working group agenda - IETF 120
Friday, July 26th, 2024
9:30-11:30 (Meeting time) – Room Georgia A
Presentation Start Time Duration Information
0 9:30 10 Title: Administrivia - WG Status - Reporting on WG drafts not
being presented - Milestones Update - Charter Update
Presenter: Chairs
1 9:40 15 Title: A YANG Data Model for Optical Impairment-aware Topology

Draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-optical-impairment-topology-yang

Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc9093-bis/

Presenter: Sergio Belotti
Aihua Guo: A support to consider the WG Last Call. We have a few drafts
dependent on these documents to progress.
Luis Contreras: chairs talked and we will start the IPR poll for
RFC9093bis and impairment topology drafts.

2 9:55 5 Title: A YANG model to manage the optical interface parameters
for an external transponder in a WDM network
Draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-dwdm-if-param-yang/
Presenter: Gabriele Galimberti (Remote)

Daniele Ceccarelli: Can you clarify to the working group, what is the
relationship between this work and the pluggable?
Gabriele Galimberti: The pluggable work addresses all the management of
the pluggable into a router. The parameter defined here can be reused as
theya are, in the pluggable scenario. They could also be extended if
there is more parameters needed. We have common experts attending both
calls. We are also open to add anything if agreed.
Daniele Ceccarelli: it's just to share with the WG that the pluggable
work is not going to replace any of existing works, neither the
impairment nor the dwdm interface draft. It will just cover the delta to
manage the pluggables.
Gabriele Galimberti: This draft and model are general attributes not
scenario-specific, and can be applicable for pluggable scenarios. We
heavily reused what is defined in RFC9093bis and impairment drafts.

3 9:58 10 Title: WDM tunnel modeling
Draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-wdm-tunnel-yang/
Presenter: Aihua Guo

Daniel King: please note that this work is a combination of two works,
wdm-tunnel and flexi-grid media channels, which results in a long list
for authors/contributors.
Daniele Ceccarelli: thank you for keeping the author list short.
Luis Contreras: please use the list to propagate the info and seek for
feedback.

4 10:08 10 Title: Use cases, Network Scenarios and gap analysis for
Packet Optical Integration (POI) with coherent plugables under ACTN
Framework
Draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-poidt-ccamp-actn-poi-pluggable-usecases-gaps/

Presenter: Oscar Gonzalez de Dios
Italo Busi: clarification on issue 19# (page 4). does it mean the
indication of framing types?
Oscar Gonzalez: Yes.
Aihu Guo: there is incident management work in NMOP. Is there a plan to
incorporate in to the draft?
Oscar Gonzalez: that makes sense, incident management is useful and need
to be incorporated.
Aihua Guo: These use cases in the documents are not prioritized, all
should be satisfied?
Oscar Gonzalez: the intention here is to cover the use cases, go to a
certain level of depth instead of full depth. There could be other
documents describe more use cases but we expect this work as
self-contained and close.
Chaode Yu: suggest to reuse the data model from ccamp and tnbi design
team.
Oscar Gonzalez: this draft only focuses on the use cases, the data model
will be in the next topic.
Swamynathan Balasundaram: is the architecture debate (3 options in
previous meetings) impacting these use case? Do we have any specific
preference?
Oscar Gonzalez: we deliverately take the issue out, to avoid problem. We
are now just following generalized ACTN framework with PNC and MDSC. We
don't think the architectural issue impacts the use cases in the
document. There could be different options in the solution documents,
depends on integrated or separate deployment of PNCs.
Daniele Ceccarelli: very wise answer, thank you.

A poll is raised, with 50% yes and 50% no opinion, chairs will take this
to the list.

5 10:20 15 Title: Modelling of Optical Pluggables in Packet Over Optical
Network
Draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-rokui-ccamp-actn-wdm-pluggable-modelling/

Presenter: Reza Rokui

Dieter Beller: I am actively participating the weekly calls. I would
like to emphasize that there are open issues on the github, specifically
the manifest concept needs to be discussed in WG, no agreement to put it
in the document yet.
Reza Rokui: sure we will do that.
Haomian Zheng: need to be careful when introducing manifest, examples on
page 12 is just a combination of given parameters. There is already a
large number of parameters in WDM/pluggable management, and it may be
more complicated if manifest is introduced.
Dave Sinicrope: it seems manifest is creating a unified big model to
rule them all, and you did mention to reach out to other organizations.
However it seems you are duplicating their attributes which would not be
advisable.
Reza Rokui: the intension is not to re-invent but to reuse, it's a
learning process and we feel that it should be there. We will figure out
whether there is a gap from IETF perspective.
Dave Sinicrope: So you are putting the attributes from other models into
this model and seems like a duplication.
Dave Sinicrope: There is no single pluggable component vendors
contributing to this document? Suggest to reach out, their opinions will
be important.
Reza Rokui: very good comment, will try to reach out.
Aihua Guo: Agree on the comments regarding manifest. You put it as a
public information, if someone come up with secret source pluggable they
may not want to publicize. There needs to be a mechanism to manage the
pluggable.
Reza Rokui: Yes, there should be a mechanism, we can discuss what it
should be.
Nigel Davis: we do have text if the vendor want to keep private, it
actually explains how that might take place to answer the previous
question.

6 10:43 10 Title: T-NBI Design Team Update
Draft: N/A
Presenter: Daniel King

Oscar Gonzalez: shall we follow this work for IPoWDM? It has optical and
has IP as well. I think we could follow same methodologies and processes
but just more use cases.
Daniel King: absolutely we can but not yet to avoid boiling the ocean.
If we get the tooling, layering and terminologies correct, adding
additional technology layers and use cases would be relatively
straightforward.
Italo Busi: For IPoWDM and POI, is in T-NBI or teas? It is okay to reuse
the tooling and expertise.
Daniel King: Radio experts said the underlay may not be optical.
Italo Busi: right, we could follow the experience and process.
Italo Busi: for the changes on cases, +1, I think it's technical but
mainly coding style. Moving a container from a choice to outside of the
choice, not sure.
Daniel King: Our preference is just to address it with other IESG
comments, as a part of the RFC editor process.
Luis Contreras: we know that point and will take a decision.

7 10:45 10 Title: YANG Data Models for fine grain Optical Transport
Network
Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tan-ccamp-fgotn-yang/
Presenter: Chaode YU

Luis Contreras: do you expect the weekly call to be ccamp?
Chaode Yu: Yes. We will send email on the list to find a slot.

8 10:55 10 Title: Applicability of GMPLS for fine grain Optical
Transport Network
Draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lin-ccamp-gmpls-fgotn-applicability/

Presenter: Yi Lin

Haomian Zheng: call for attention to fgOTN, there is GMPLS & PCE
protocol applicability analysis and extensions together with data model
augmentations in multiple WGs. It's a very important technology in ccamp
WG.

9 11:05 25 Title: YANG Data Models for Transport TE FGNM Extension,
Service Path computation and Resource Performance Monitoring
Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yu-ccamp-te-fgnm-yang/

Luis Contreras: regarding the multi-layer attributes, does it fit into
ccamp WG?
Chaode: yes, all considerations are in optical.

Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ybb-ccamp-service-path-computation/
Swamynathan Balasundaram: are you proposing a single path computation
model for both layers, OTN and WDM?
Chaode Yu: scenario depends, if the WDM tunnel have been set up before
the creation of the path, and meanwhile it's the best option to reuse
the WDM tunnel, then there is no need to do the WDM path computation
again. WDM path computation is not always requested.
Swamynathan Balasundaram: bottom-up and top-down may be mixed, for one
part it could be top-down while for the other part it could be bottom
up. The second question is, in the architecture vision, where is the
path computed? On the MDSC or the domain controller?
Swamynathan Balasundaram: the MDSC or PNC will do the path computation.

Chaode Yu: For top-down approach, the path computation will be done on
the domain controller, bottom-up request both.

Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yu-ccamp-resource-pm-yang/
Presenter: Chaode Yu
No questions & discussions for this draft.

Adjourn 11:30