OSPF WG Meeting in Vancouver
                       Scribes: Alvaro Retena (aretena@yahoo.com) 
                                Uma Chunduri (uma.chunduri@ericsson.com)
                       Chairs: Abhay Roy and Acee Lindem

  Acee opened the meeting...Note Well...IPR Process...WG Status / see slides

 OSPFv3 Autoconfiguration Update  -- Acee
    Motivated by homenet....
    Alvaro: What is the scope intent?  Homenet or beyond?
    Acee: Beyond.
    Alvaro:  The draft talks about MUST for area 0, which would prevent 
             autoconfiguration in other areas.

    Poll of room in favor of making it a WG doc
    Jari. Good to adopt regardless of status in homenet.

 Prefix Assignment in a Home Network -- Jari Arkko 
    Acee:  Maybe it doesn't belong here because OSPF is used just as transport 
           and flooding.  Replacing DNCPv6 PD
    Abhay: Yes, but we should keep the WG informed

    Abhay: Are numbering collisions handled??
    Jari: yes, there are several possible conflicts that may require 
          renumbering in some cases.
    Abhay: Any renumbering is bad....should be avoided.
    Jari: Yes, but that's hard.  The danger is there always a possibility and 
          we notice the collision too late.
    Acee: homenet requirement is that the home router maintains previous 
          allocations to reduce possibility of collision
    Jari: selection of subsets is based on hw ID and a hash to help reduce 
          collisions 
 
 Incremental Database Exchange - Alvaro Retena
    - Motivation of the draft
    - ILS Process
    - Flooding/DB Sync
    Dimitri Papadimitriou: Question on - additional state machinery
             Is this the right time to sit down and  compare with the one we 
             presented last year to see what will be the best way to approach
    Alvaro: yes, we can sit down
    Abhay: on all the routers should have the same prioritization - is it enforced
            through config ?
    Alvaro: By configuration or some thing... but it's local decision
    Acee: We should state - Opaque LSA is an optio
          Routing should be high priority
     ...Discussion on Priority….
    Dimitri: Should we have priority ...
 
    - On ILS process slide
     Abhay: Question on LSDB Synchronization
            Do we have to worry about which type we are syncing?
     Alvaro: This is not a 2 step process ...
     Abhay: Is the order based on config
     Alvaro: local decision
     Acee: My reading is we need to specify more
           - at least add one recommended way of doing this
     Acee: Has any body read this
          Do people think this kind of optimization is useful:
          We need to see this approach  with other presentation happened 
          last year.
     Alvaro: WG adoption?
 
 RFC 3137 BIS - Alvaro Retena
     - What is rfc 3137
     - Update on this work
     - WGLC?
     Acee: This is the update from WGLC, we will have chance for people to
           see further.
 
 
  OSPF Single Hop MANET - Alvaro Retena 
     - What is this draft about?
     - Single hop broadcast network
     - Summary
     - Single-Hop Detection
     - Next steps
     - WGLC
     Acee: How many people remember 5820 (overlapping relays)
     Acee: When we use Hybrid P2MP we agree we could use techniques from Manet

  OSPF Topology-Transparent Zone -- Huaimo Chen
     Acee: no external routes inside TTZ?
     Huaimo: Yes, external routes can exist
     Acee: look at partitions too.
     Acee: the most important draft at this point is the applicability draft
     Richard Li: Automation is really important in TTZ...and is not really
                 a hierarchy...
     Dimitri: Want to hide links/states from the general area?  Should discuss 
              on mailing list.

  OSPF Topology-Transparent Zone Applicability -- Huaimo Chen
     Acee: Need to separate TE issues
     Acee: why is stitching an LDP through the TTZ easier for the border router?
     Huaimo: pre-computation has to exist while TTZ makes it automatically
     Acee: asks about RAN topology on slides
     Huaimo: it's a generalized topology (Richard supports)
     Lou Berger: is this just about TE?
     Huaimo: No, that's just an example
     Dimitri: TE applications may go beyond mapping to OSPF domains...
     Acee: no accepted standard for inter-area TE
     Lou: that's why I asked...but the answer was no...
     Acee: I wanted to see numbers related to topology savings
           Need discussion on requirements before moving forward.

  Extensions to OSPF facilitating the deployment of non-backward-compatible 
  changes -- Mike Dubrovskiy
     First time presenter; Acee is happy to see new ideas flowing into the WG.
     Acee: The examples shouldn't include extended TE metrics
     Mike: Maybe extended metrics...
     Russ White:  Clarifies operation of EIGRP from Mike's previous comments
     Russ: How does the information flood through flooding domain boundaries
     Acee: Read the draft...uses as-wide opaque LSAs
     Alvaro: I agree with you that this is not needed...non-backwards compatible 
             solution to help deploy not backwards compatible solution
     Acee: Need to discuss on the list