Daniele Ceccarelli: we have decided to close the DT.
They have done a great job, had an hackathon in
Prague, all the deliverables have been adopted by the WG. They are stable and
close to the WG LC. Closing the DT doesn't mean we are not accepting any more
contributions on microwave. I hope it was just the starting point.
Amy Ye: we are also considering for next step to
visit the topology augment for microwave.
Title: OTN Topology YANG model and OTN tunnel model
Dieter Beller: There is no definition in the draft
regarding the channel numbers. I think you are defining those in the wavelength
range type. What are the channel numbers used in the draft, how are they
Young Lee: we can talk offline.
Dieter: I have also a few questions regarding the
grouping use some link attributes and there are some issues that we should
discuss. We can take that offline.
Young Lee: OK.
Fatai Zhang: In your next step, you said you are
going to add some impairment data on topology, this kind of information may
depend on the encoding of the impairment. The encoding of impairment is
individual draft and may take much time to move forward for the encoding draft.
So if you are going to add this kind of impairment information to WSON
topology, it needs to take much longer time.
Young Lee: we can also move without this and later
we think about augment. It may be better consistent with GMPLS approach.
Daniele Ceccarelli: like what we did in WSON. Maybe
you follow that as impairment-free and impairment-aware.
Young Lee: OK. No problem.
(Regarding the second draft)
Young Lee: are you going to put it in the list?
Daniele Ceccarelli: we are going to take this work
to the list. we want to speed up the YANG models in this WG, including
WSON/OTN/Flexi-grid/Microwave. This is our priority because the market window
is open now and we need to hurry up.
Title: Transport Northbound applicability statment
and use cases
Daniele Ceccarelli: I have one question on the
plug-id, dose it allow to understand whether the relationship between the two
topologies is peering or client-server?
Italo Busi: The link is to be peer. By definition,
the inter-domain link is the same layer.
Fatai Zhang: I would like to suggest the authors or
the DT to take Igor's draft as input, because that draft also talks about use
cases and describe how to use the YANG models for the transport network. That's
a good foundation for the DT to take as an input.
Italo Busi: Yes, we will take that as input.
Title: A YANG Data Model for Client-layer Topology,
Client-layer Tunnel and Optical Transport Network Client Signals;
Amy Ye: this is very useful work especially for
Ethernet which is a very common client-server service even in the microwave. In
our case, we were deploying the QinQ Ethernet model and Ethernet service. So I
want to know whether this model is addressing that or is going to address that
in the future.
Haomian Zheng: currently there is no QinQ stuffs,
but we can integrate that in the future. I agree with you that microwave is a
potential server to the Ethernet service.
Daniele Ceccarelli: as proposed on the mailing list,
my suggestion is to try to see what is the generalized part and bring it to
TEAS. Then do technology-specific extensions in CCAMP.
Haomian Zheng: I agree with this approach. This work
is augmenting the TE generic models. The scope would still be within TE.
Young Lee: we have a L1CSM model. So you do not have
to do everything here, but focus on Ethernet.
Haomian Zheng: this work would be at the network
side and nothing to do with customer service. We assume the work to be MPI
while the LxSM and L1csm is applied on CMI. There is a terminology issue that
both of them are called service model. We would like to hear from the WG if
there is a better name.
Italo Busi: For QinQ, if it is a QinQ point-to-point
TE tunnel, it is an Ethernet tunnel, which is supported here. If it is a
connection-less QinQ that we have not analyzed that option. So it depends on
which type of QinQ implementation you are looking at. This model is for MPI, it
is not for CMI, where L1CSM is for CMI. So you need to translate the L1CSM
requested to the MDSC into this command that goes to the PNC. We need to align
with the "client".
Jeff Tantsura: IEEE 802.1 is working on Ethernet and
QinQ, so we should align with those models. Need to align with I2RS.
Haomian Zheng: OK.
Title: A Yang Data Model for L1 Connectivity Service
David Sinicrope: Definitely need to send an LS to
MEF. Dave Martin from Nokia is driving this work in MEF.
Jeff Tantsura: LS to MEF have been brought a few
times this week, not only on L1VPN but also on life cycle management. So from
IAB perspective, we are going to make it.
Sergio Belotti: Dave is aware of my contribution to
this work, but there is no official documentation from MEF. I agree that an LS
to MEF is needed.
Young Lee: You need an LS only if this is a WG
document, otherwise there is no point.
Daniele Ceccarelli: You are right, and the IETF
should be aware of this work going on in MEF, but only some companies are allowed
to reach the MEF document.
David Sinicrope: we may need to use the informal
approach to MEF, and make them aware of such work to trigger an official
Daniele Ceccarelli: the problem in MEF is that the
document is not available to everyone.
David Sinicrope: we can use the informal channel to
ask MEF to send LS to CCAMP. I don't think we should take a WG document as the
work is on MEF.
Deborah A Brungard: Can do informally, we would need
a formal liaison from them. IETF's work is open. They can access this document.
If MEF's participants find this work is interesting, they can send a liaison to
us. It is not for us to hear that MEF (a closed group) may be working on
something and we send them a liaison.
Fatai Zhang: what do you mean by L1 here? ODU pipe
or also include such as WSON?
Giuseppe Fioccola: it is basically connection. We
need to make some examples about that in next step.
Title: Flexigrid and flexigrid media channel YANG
David Sinicrope: There was a liaison to CCAMP months
ago from BBF letting CCAMP know they are doing a similar work. There has been a
lot of discussion on what is the applicability of GMPLS to FlexE and there has
been a lot of confusion. If you adopt this document it would be good to send a
liaison to BBF saying this is the applicability of GMPLS.
Loa Andersson: Fast protection is an applicability
David Sinicrope: The selection of FlexE capable
links at the client layer is new, what Iíve seen in other sections is the
signaling of some FlexE info that allows creating a FlexE path at the FlexE
layer. What is the label in that cases? Is there FlexE switching?
Loa Andersson: what we are communication is link
capabilities that a path requires. Thatís why we need the routing system.
Qilei Wang: FlexE can be used to carry not only MPLS
but also other types of traffic.
David Sinicrope: What is the relationship between
the LSP set up with GMPLS and the FlexE that is setup underneath? And how do
Loa Andersson: What is setup in the FlexE layer is
announced in the upper layer routing system. The routing system know what is
the capability of the links (via TE parameters).
Gabriele Galimberti: Do you think to extend the LSP
also to WDM networks? I.e. a UNI interfaces between FlexE and WDM? In other
words, can the shim between the two nodes be a WSM network?
Loa Andersson: Yes, but need to be verified.
Dieter Beller: From the draft it seems there is
FlexE switch, please correct it. There is also a locking mechanism defined that
allows changing the bandwidth of a group. This is not aligned with the FlexE
10† 17:07†† 10†
Routing and Signaling Framework for B100G & GMPLS Signaling Extensions for
Dieter Beller: useful work as defines how the ACTN
components interact with GMPLS. Answering first of the 4 questions in the
slides. Question1 (how GMPSL helps report topology to controller): The PNC can
listen to the IGP.
Haomian Zheng: Different people might have different
understanding, better describe it.
Daniele Ceccarelli: Agree on usefulness of the work.
What is the relationship with T-NBI design team?
Haomian Zheng: This is mode device interaction, not
Italo Busi: We look at the NBI, we donít care about
how the PNC translates the actions into device language.
Young Lee: Are you also scoping PCEP when you say
Haomian Zheng: PCEP is classified as centralized
soluiton, not as GMPLS.
Young Lee: please consider alignment with PCE WG on
Julien Meuric (remote): It seems to me there is much
overlap with existing PCE documents like RFC4655. Agree with Young.
Sergio Belotti: Support the work. It opens the door
to work on the SBI.
Rudiger Kunze: What problem do we want to solve in
addition to what we have in PCE WG? Maybe I2RS is the right way to go on.
13† 17:35†† 8††
extensions for Media Channel sub-carriers configuration in Spectrum Switched
Optical Networks (SSON) in Lambda Switch Capable (LSC) Optical Line Systems.
Daniele Ceccarelli: The draft generated a lot of
discussion on the list and there is also rather good support. I didnít see any
next steps in the presentation but I guess youíll ask for WG adoption
Stefan Vallin: Yes, and will incorporate comments
from the list.