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