Subject: IETF 58 Minutes

From: Danny McPherson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 19:33:37 -0700

Folks,
Please provide corrections/additions to the minutes to
Stewart and I by 12/5.  Again, the minutes are located
here, along with the rest of the proceedings:

http://pwe3.tcb.net/meetings/ietf58

Thanks!

-danny

---

From: Rahul Aggarwal <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 11:15:09 -0800 (PST)

Hi Danny,

A few comments inline. Please look for ###

Rahul Aggarwal - Use of PE-PE IP/GRE/IPSec for MPLS PWs
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-raggarwa-pwe3-pw-over-ip-00.txt
This document describes procedures for carrying MPLS PWs over IP, GRE or
IPsec tunnels.  Still uses MPLS control plane.  Motivation is that there
may be non-MPLS routers between ingress and egress PEs.  MPLS packet gets
sent over an IP or GRE tunnel.  Can also use IPSEC to secure the tunnel

Rahul - asked to make a WG document
Eric Rosen - asked why this document exists since there is a similar
         document in MPLS WG
Rahul - Agreed that other documents exists.  This document does not define
any
        protocols - just procedures.

### I also said that the MPLS WG document specifies how to encpsulate MPLS
in IP/GRE. It does not specify how to carry PWs over IP/GRE. And that
there is an existing document for doing the same for 2547 over IP/GRE.

Mark Townsley - seconded Eric's opinion.  Said that this was a way to send
        MPLS over IP without using L2TPv3.
Rahul - said that there was a need coming from SPs

### I also said that this addresses the case when the PW control plane is MPLS and
backbone is IP only.

thanks,
rahul

Luca Martini - Said that it is contained in control document
Rahul - will follow up, but not sure that it is in control document
Luca - send me a paragraph
Andy Malis - add voice to the chorus.  All specified elsewhere
Kireeti Kompella - Document in L3VPN in GRE defined elsewhere. This is the
       moral equivalent for PWE3.  If already in place, perhaps we should
       just expand and clarify.
Yaakov Stein - For MPLS label handling is obvious.  For IP, not clear.
       Inner label may be OK.  Document raises a good point about how to
       handle labels over IP.
Rahul -  concurred.
Danny - take it to the mailing list.

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Danny McPherson wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> pwe3 mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>

---

From: "Yaakov Stein" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 09:45:20 +0200

Just a few (mostly editorial) changes:

1)

A more informative version would be

>> Yaakov Stein - For MPLS it is obvious that the PW label is an MLPS inner label.  
For IP, there have been various suggestions (L2TP, UDP port numbers, MPLS-like label).  
Document raises a good point about how to handle labels over IP.

2)
> Subject is being discussed in ITU SG13 as Y.tdmompls.

should be

>> Subject is being discussed in ITU SG13 as Y.tdmpls.

3)
> Yaakov - can add mode, but what is the exact service?  Need to be specify.

Should be "need to be specific" or "need to specify"
Actually, a more informative version would be

>> Yaakov - can add mode, but need to specify if interoperability between the two T1 modes is required.

4)
> Danny - why did they object  (add "?")

5)
> Stewart - what is the status of the TDM requirements (add "?")

6)
> Yaakov - why is this a separate draft (add "?")