0 - Administrivia - WG Status - Reporting on WG drafts not being presented two documents adopted draft-ietf-ccamp-b100g-applicability draft-ietf-ccamp-mw-topo-yang draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang: Aligned with the TE generic model -tunnel-model wson-iv-encode wson-iv-info Gabriele Galimberti: (regarding the iv documents) The documents have been refreshed and according to the authors they are ready for last call. Daniele Ceccarelli: will review and proceed. - Liasons Classic liason on the progress of ONTN standardization with ITU-T SG15. 1 9:10 10 Title: Transport Northbound Interface Applicability Statement https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-transport-nbi-app-statement-05 Italo Busi Daniele Ceccarelli: Could you go through the future plan to detail what you are focusing on? what is missing now? Italo Busi: We still need to fix some editorials and references. A major one is about the description of the protection. No other big issues. Daniele Ceccarelli: Use the list to confirm, and as said last time, we can go on anytime when it's ready. Don't need to cover everything. Italo Busi: If people have concerns we can have them in future document. 2 9:20 15 Title: YANG models for WSON Draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-yang-19 Draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-tunnel-model-03 Presenter: Young Lee (discussion regarding the topology models) Daniele Ceccarelli: The TE topology is now back to the working group. The drafts need to wait for the topology. Gert Grammel: operation modes contain already FEC type, but FEC is spelled out explicitly in the YANG model. That needs to be cleaned up to avoid overlap. Young Lee: FEC type is expected to be in the operation mode as a Layer-0 type, actually this document contains the Layer-0 types. Dieter suggested the layer 0 type to be a separate document. TE type was doing the same way. We need to decide whether to separate. The feedback from YANG doctors is the separating types module without any content is not easy to follow. Dieter Beller: you can add references in the draft that contains L0 types Young Lee: so you still prefer to separate the types? Dieter Beller: Yes. There are also other related topics on the agenda, and side meeting as well. At the end of the sessions we will see how to move forward (like the L0 impairments drafts) Daniele Ceccarelli: we still need to figure out on the list. Lou Berger: update on TE topology: last call finishes on Friday. The type was blocking the progress (it was in another draft). Fatai Zhang: If the WG agrees to have a L0 types document, we prefer to have it in ccamp right? (Lou: yes. ) Italo Busi: L0 Types is putting grouping used in many models. The risk is to depend too much on the potential new L0 draft. The other option would be we go step by step, like v1 for WSON and v2 for other features. Daniele Ceccarelli: this makes me think splitting is a better option. Lou Berger: completely agree (with Italo). As TE types is referenced by multiple modules, it makes sense to split. Oscar González de Dios: reminder that we also have flexi-grid. Young Lee: added flexi-grid and WSON types in L0-types already. (Discussion regarding the tunnel models) Igor Bryskin: (regarding the progress of TE-tunnel) we expect last call, it's very stable, and there will not be much technical changes. Fatai Zhang: clarifies that there are no issues in the TE-tunnel. (Igor: yes. ) Young Lee: It's great, meanwhile is it possible to request YANG doctor review? Daniele Ceccarelli: we need to figure out the splitting first before going to that. It may impact the YAND doctor review. (Discussion regarding flexi-grid models) Young Lee: there is a small error on the naming in the flexi-grid model, it needs to use the correct flexi-grid term. Daniele Ceccarelli: it would be good to find the same yang doctor to review these document. Igor Bryskin: Errors and error handling were missing in the tunnel models. There is corresponding sessions in te-tunnel models. You need to look a t the errors that need to be sent to the client. Daniele Ceccarelli: are the errors already added? Igor Bryskin: they are in the update of the generic tunnel draft. 3 9:35 10 Title: A Yang Data Model for L1 Connectivity Service Model (L1CSM) Draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang-09 Presenter: Young Lee Fatai Zhang: The draft has no dependencies on other wg documents. (Young: No, that's right.) Haomian Zheng: Do we have the same motivation to split the types apart? Young Lee: AFAIK, the types in this document is not imported in elsewhere. Daniele Ceccarelli: How about integrating a 'L0-L1-types' for all? Young Lee: No, not preferred. Haomian Zheng: No. The proposal is just to figure out common types in this work and otn-tunnel draft. Currently they are semantically aligned but just belongs to different drafts. Young Lee: No, these two are not identical, there are some terms similar but not same attributes. Haomian Zheng: So we can either have a super set of these, or a separate L1-service-type and another otn-types. Daniele Ceccarelli: no particular reason for not having the types together (L1 and OTN) Young Lee: not sure how much we shared, but it is worth to merge. If OTN is going to split anyhow, this work may be a good place. OTN is the only Layer-1 technology we know today. Haomian Zheng: Yes, the L1CSM provided in this draft is mainly achieved with OTN networks, it makes sense to have common types. Young Lee: Ok, let's evaluate. Michael Scharf: Do we need a more formal definition of the performance metrics? Young Lee: the draft reuses MEF performance metrics. Offilne China Unicom asked for more metrics. Michael Scharf: we need Reference explicitly. Young Lee: The refernce is specificed in MEF 63. Igor Bryskin: Likes L0 types and L1 types different. No need to combine L1 and L0. Young Lee: clarifies that is exactly the proposal. Oscar González de Dios: even in the same layer, you can have different technologies, L1 is easier. Igor Bryskin: In L0 flexi can be separated, but not a must. But L0 and L1 have to be separated. Young Lee: we agree that. Sergio: just to clarify, the reference to MEF, should be confirmed by MEF that they are fully aligned? Young Lee: MEF is in UML, and no YANG. Currently we think we are aligned. Dieter Beller: did you present this work to MEF? how they respond? Young Lee: MEF has UML/API people more than YANG people. Dieter Beller: No need to look into yang, just check the attributes. Young Lee: We did, and that part is good. Fatai Zhang: we may send out liaison to MEF to confirm, MEF focus on parameters definition, we focus on YANG models in IETF, but we may turn to them to check. Young Lee: MEF LSO defines the UMLs. Deborah Brungard: There is a liaison, but not response. Reminds that IETF has not responded. Need to put it in their language. Young Lee: do we need to make it to UML? Deborah Brungard: No, just attributes. Young Lee: that is done. 4 9:45 10 Title: A YANG Data Model for Microwave Topology Draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-mw-topo-yang-01 Presenter: Amy Ye No questions. 5 9:55 10 Title: A YANG Data Model for Transport Network Client Signals Draft: https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-zheng-ccamp-client-signal-yang-06.txt Presenter: Haomian Zheng Loa Andersson: Does the title refer to transport networks and or transport? the term transport is confusing. Gert Grammel: This is a complete view of the transport. Look exactly at what you want to abstract. Daniele Ceccarelli: We are focusing on the access link. Gert Grammel: then, you don't need to describe a hierarchy of controllers. Why would you need the controllers? Michael Scharf: Be careful with the term transport, it has many meanings in IETF. Dieter Beller: it addresses how transport network signals are mapped into tunnels. This draft is focused on describing how to adapt the CE to the PE, and the tunnels. If the understanding is right, this should be reflected on the title. Haomian Zheng: It's true, client-facing is a part of topology model, the information is useful for the controller to understand what types of client signals can be supported and adapted to the right PE. Gert Grammel: the abstraction presented on (p.4 ?) isn't really an abstraction but an architectural concept. For such cases it should be stated what exactly is supposed to be abstracted between controllers. Seemingly there is no abstraction between subnet-controllers and network controller. Poll: how many people are interested in this topic? Lot of hands raised Poll: how many people think this work is a good starting point? almost the same. 6 10:05 10 Title: A Yang Data Model for Optical Impairment-aware Topology Draft: https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-lee-ccamp-optical-impairment-topology-yang-01.txt Presenter: Young Lee Young Lee: G.872 defines ROADM and ROADM function together with Media link which is used to model ROADM and Optical Amplifiers OMS starts right after the ROADM function inside the ROADM node. Igor Bryskin: Clarification question. What about a transponder separated from the ROADM? Young Lee: the model in this work considers the Transponder in the ROADM. Igor Bryskin: Does this work focus on telemetry? Young Lee: no, actually if you look into the node, you cannot directly get any impairment information. Igor Bryskin: why is it call "impairments model"? Dieter Beller: in previous calls, we focused on modeling the OMS link like fiber spans, amplifiers, and so on. It does not talk too much about how to model the optical impairment are imposed by the ROADM. I think that should be some future work. (Young: yes, correct.) Aihua Guo: have you considered the Add/Drop amplifier? Young Lee: currently not. Gabriele Galimberti: not yet, it's just a sub-case, in the ROADM degree. Dieter Beller: it depends on the ROADM architecture. The architecture here is a starting point, we have not touched that yet. Igor Bryskin: still missing the focus of this work, is it a general one? Young Lee: this is optical-impairment, started from OMS, and take the parameters on the optical layer into account. We won't duplicate what has been done in WSON and flexi-grid. Igor Bryskin: is it a network-wide model? Young Lee: Yes, network-wide model. Julien Meuric: we have done more than what is shown in the slides (reference architecture page, page 4) Oscar González de Dios: asks if it is possible to focus on the value of the model (the model of the OMS) and augment existing optical yang models. Aihua Guo: augmenting to TE links, with an assumption from ROADM to ROADM. how about if TE links is on OMS? Young Lee: we need to discuss and augment, on which TE links are not covered today. Aihua Guo: implementations from different companies are not the same, some are only focusing on the TE links on OTS link. Young Lee: right, your contribution would be appreciated. Julien Meuric: we discussed and agreed OMS on TE links is the right thing. OTS is the OMS ends on the amplifier instead of ROADMs, so if you would like to consider amplifier as a ROADM, there won't be contradiction. Young Lee: As an operator, this use case make sense to you, right? Julien Meuric: Yes. We need the parameters described in your work, whether impairment parameters come from OMS or elsewhere is a detail. I suggest WG to take a look at this and send feedback. Igor Bryskin: amplifiers can either be a part of a link, or a part of the ROADM. Julien Meuric: agree to be a part of link. Conclusion? Daniele Ceccarelli: regarding the question on WG adoption, we will discuss. 7 10:15 13 Title: Analysis and YANG model for FlexE Draft: https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-wang-ccamp-flexe-control-analysis-00.txt Draft: https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-xiaobn-ccamp-flexe-yang-mod-00.txt Presenter: Qilei Wang Daniele Ceccarelli: what is the relationship between the control analysis draft and the framework draft? Loa Andersson: currently it's not clear. We requested a slot for framework but did not get. Daniele Ceccarelli: it was not on the tool. Loa Andersson: (regarding slides p5/6) is that true Even if there are different parameters for flexE? The TE parameters for ethernet and flexE are not the same, can you just use it anyway? Qilei Wang: Yes, I think they can be used in the same way. Loa Andersson: the concern is to use them in the same way does not make sense. Deborah Brungard: Are you going to define a flexE switching interface? Qilei Wang: No. Deborah Brungard: it's just a link and you could define a switching type if needed. Deborah Brungard: considering the framework, it specified the multiple-layer control plane. The inter-op between the GMPLS control plane and the control plane of the clients should not be the same. I am not sure the GMPLS control plane would need to interwork with MPLS control plane. Qilei Wang: I just don't want to involve GMPLS. Deborah Brungard: then it's very important on how you define that? It's similar as the client. In your YANG document, you scope it just in the layer of FlexE. You did not talk about multi-layer. Qilei Wang: No, it's separate. Deborah Brungard: but as soon as you want to discuss about MPLS client, that would be needed. It's very confusing that the description of how the control plane is interact, and in requirement you have flexE control plane should support the LSP establishement of FlexE, not the reverse, on the MPLS control plane. Yuanlong: you claimed to have an interface flexE module, but in the model we did not find it. What is the relationship between your model and the interface? How to use this model in your mind? Qilei Wang: we just first construct the flexE and then adapt it into... Yuanlong: How? You need a device so that you have an interface. What you need to configure? Fatai Zhang: Let's discuss after Yuanlong's session. 8 10:28 10 Title: YANG Data Model for FlexE Interface Management Draft: https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-jiang-ccamp-flexe-yang-00.txt Presenter: Yuanlong Jiang Daniele Ceccarelli: What is the relation with the previous yang model? Yuanlong Jiang: They are independent Qilei Wang: This draft is to allocate the slot to the client, the previous one can be perform by the equipment itself. Fatai Zhang: His one is for interface model, what about yours? Qilei Wang: it's also interface model. Fatai Zhang: They are same topic, but different approach. . Daniele Ceccarelli: either progress both with VERY clear scopes (with no overlapping), or merge them. Fatai Zhang: flexE is a new topic. We need to decide if we start from the framework or we discard it. Deborah Brungard: have a framework would be helpful, but not necessary to publish. Currently we may continue working on converged approach. Yuanlong Jiang: The framework document is about control, not configuration. Deborah Brungard: the framework is showing a routing, that has an interface. So it's not necessarily a specific framework for flexE. It's an informational document for multi-layer. John Messenger: the real question behind the debate is whether the flexE to be the switching layer or not. Fatai Zhang: want to emphasize FlexE here is an interface technology, without switching capability; This is different with SPN in ITU-T SG15. Yuanlong Jiang: Yes, just focus on interface, nothing to do with switching. Loa Andersson: We have to construct multiple layers as flexE is not switchable. MPLS-TE need to be involved for LSP establishment. (to Deborah) Given the fact that people may be confused about the scope, the framework document may be necessary to publish. Deborah Brungard: on the perspective of IESG, the requirements / use cases/ examples can be put as appendix for publications. We will discuss it later. (Regarding the draft) I don't think the current configuration is supported by the hardware in the physical network, say request explicit slots for flexE. Your idea to configure via YANG (to request slot) is not there. There is a protocol there, to notify the other side on which slot to be used, and may not be YANG. You can work it out together. Yuanlong Jiang: yeah, the details will be proceeded offline. 9 10:38 12 Title: LMP extensions, YANG models and signaling extensions for SSON and Impairment Aware RWA Draft: https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ggalimbe-ccamp-flex-if-lmp-07.txt Draft: https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-galimbe-ccamp-iv-yang-08.txt Draft: https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ggalimbe-ccamp-flexigrid-carrier-label-06.txt Presenter: Gabriele Galimberti Gabriele Galimberti: good discussions about the OTSi and OTSiG. It is important to complete the work on the flexi-grid spectrum. Daniele Ceccarelli: (about the IA part) are you planning to write the text of the liaison (to ITU-T)? Gabriele Galimberti: I think we can write the liaison, we know very well what we have discussed, it's just a matter to write down the text. Daniele Ceccarelli: Just send it to the list so the WG can review together. Gabriele Galimberti: Actually in the draft there is already some text. Italo Busi: Do we need to really write a liaison? or the companies who are working on this can contribute to ITU-T? Daniele Ceccarelli: we cannot force people to write a contribution. Italo Busi: No, but people are interested in solving the problem, and we have noticed the gap, why not write a contribution? Gabriele Galimberti: I think we can do both.