CCAMP Meeting Minutes by: Haomian,

CCAMP working group agenda - IETF 118
Thursday, November 9, 2023
9:30-11:30 (Meeting time) – Room Amsterdam
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
Daniele Ceccarelli: Do we need another YDR?
Sergio Belotti: No
Daniele Ceccarelli: we will wait for the issues closed, and then move
forward to rtgdir, and then proceed the two documents as a cluster.
Fatai Zhang: looks more open issue, is the document mature enough?
Sergio Belotti: current issues may not need much debate, just doing
homework to implement the agreed changes. We will drive to complete the
work soon.

2 9:55 15 Title: A YANG Data Model for WDM Tunnels
Draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bgk-ccamp-merged-wdm-tunnel/
Presenter: Aihua Guo
Daniele Ceccarelli: please re-submit the document with a WG name, and
make sure the new one replaces the two wG documents and not this one.

3 10:10 10 Title: Microwave Topology & Interface Reference Draft
Draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-bwa-topo-yang/
Draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-if-ref-topo-yang/
Draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ybam-rfc8561bis
Draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-mw-topo-yang/
Presenter: Scott Mansfield

(first draft)
Luis Contreras: too much beyond radio purpose at this moment, the
purpose for the draft move is to have a wider scope?
Scott Mansfield: yes in the plan to go beyond the microwave. BTW this
movement won't impact the progre

(second draft)
Bo Wu: just one node defined, the relationship is constructed to
TE-topology only, we may need to consider the inventory topology. Is
this work TE-specific or more genc or more gen
Scott Mansfield: prefer to focus on interfacing and end point modeling
rather than microwave topology. Prefer to take it to the list and decide
where to go.
Daniele Ceccarelli: works in the ivy targets on one inventory document,
now there are already eight and this one looks like the ninth.
Scott Mansfield: it is not poison ivy.
Oscar Gonzales (as teas chair): teas is going to discuss this tomorrow,
if the relationship is TE-related, teas will take it and it seems so at
this moment.

(third draft)
No comments

(fourth draft)
Daniele Ceccarelli: what changes did you make? Any specific additions or
just remove text? To decide whether another YDR review is needed.
Scott: mainly resolves the comments, not much addition. Several
containers are changed to present.
Daniele Ceccarelli: not sure the draft had YDR but it has had many
reviews already

4 10:20 15 Title: A YANG Data Model for Transport Network Client Signals
and Optical Network Performance Monitoring
Draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-client-signal-yang/
Draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yu-ccamp-optical-resource-pm-yang/

Presenter: Chaode Yu
(first draft)
Nigel Davis: path set is added in TAPI 2.5 as a grouping that could be
used together, may integrate into this work.
Chaode Yu: ok noted and will check.

(second draft)
No comments

5 10:35 10 Title: Integrating YANG Configuration and Management into an
Abstraction and Control of TE Networks (ACTN) System for Optical
Networks
Draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gstk-ccamp-actn-optical-transport-mgmt/

Presenter: Daniel King
Daniele Ceccarelli: why this work only focus on optix?
Scott Mansfield: good idea to evolve the MTOSI/Corba.
Italo Busi: regarding the scope limited to optical, this is a bit grey
area. In transport networks we have multiple layer networks and these
are generic definitions applicable to the layer networks used in
transport network but I am not sure they are used outside of the
transport network applications
Aihua G: in BBF there are also related works, topology and inventory for
management capabilities. These are expected to align with the work here.

6 10:45 10 Title: Conveying Transceiver-Related Information within
RSVP-TE Signaling
Draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-meuric-ccamp-tsvmode-signaling/

Presenter: Julien Meuric

Haomian Zheng: Good to see harmonizing between data models and
protocols. Some of the capabilities is not just signaling, but more
proper to be routing and other protocols such as OSPF and PCE. Is that
the scope of this work?
Julien Meuric: Agree to take into account the routing protocols, but not
in this work. The objective for such works will be to align with the
impairment YANG model. OSPF & PCE are also under consideration.
Haomian Zheng: the impairment YANG model can be used as a dictionary,
and we just work on how to put these parameters into the protocol stack?

Julien Meuric: Yes.
Aihua Guo: If it's an extension to exchange transceiver info with OLS,
then OSPF should be the preferences. For the RSVP-TE path message, do
you intend to send it end-to-end or just between transceivers?
Julien Meuric: The idea is to carry it end to end to enable both
transceivers configuring the same mode consistently at each end of the
wavelengths.
Aihua Guo: when saying 'send the configuration from the Line back to the
transceiver' it seems that the OLS can configure the transceiver.
Julien Meuric: Yes it's allowed, especially useful for Power management
and similar stuffs.
Aihua Guo: that's say the GMPLS control plane can coordinate the
configuration end-to-end.
Julien Meuric: controller can use YANG to configure the NEs, while
between NEs there is GMPLS. Consistency should be kept.
(The chairs starts a poll, the result shows a good number of support
with no objection. )

7 11:05 10 Title: Applicability of ACTN to POI extensions to support
router optical interfaces
Draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-poidt-ccamp-actn-poi-pluggable/

Presenter: Oscar Gonzalez
Alexandre: any plan to extend the work to microwave as well? or only
optical.
Oscar Gonzalez: now only optical.
Aihua Guo: coordination level, IP+Optical can be done on MDSC, optical
module perspective can be managed by O-PNC.

Julien Meuric: discussion in the side meeting shows the
misunderstanding. There is people and work outside IETF. This document
is informational and targets on scoping the upcoming specification work?
(Yes) The depiction in the document for option 2 provides almost
everything ready, so the intuitive conclusion is to drop option one?
Please talk to people outside people if they are okay. Appendix could
also be used to describe the usage of multiple options.

Adrian Farrel: side meeting discussions help in mutual understanding,
and people could then decide which part to merge and how. (to Oscar) not
mentioning security means operators not care?

Oscar: we mentioned this yesterday, it needs to be included, but not yet
there so far.

8 11:20 10 Title: Control Architecture of Optical Pluggables in Packet
Devices Under ACTN POI Framework
Draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-davis-ccamp-photonic-plug-control-arch/

Presenter: Reza Rokui

Julien Meuric: comments & discussions to be done on the list due to time
limitation.

9 11:30 10 Title: Security and Operational concerns in ACTN POI work
Draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-doolan-ccamp-saoc-in-actn-poi/
Presenter: Harald Bock
Julien Meuric: mentioning 'who decides' is a valid question, and to me
the problem is double, we need to identify and agree before considering
combining documents who decides on who owns the states in the NEs, we
need to dive to make sure we are progressing in a consistent manner.

Adjourn 11:35