Subject: ForCES minutes

From: Patrick Droz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 14:21:37 +0200

Attached are the minutes from the ForCES meeting in Yokohama. Please
comment before I will forward them to the official minutes
list.

Regards,
Patrick

PS. Thanks Christian for taking minutes
IETF 54, Yokohama, ForCES Minutes
---------------------------------

About 80 people attending the meeting.

Agenda bashing & list of draft to be reviewed.
WG status: 2 drafts on last call

ForCES Model - Draft 0 (Joel presenting)
------------
Individual contribution: ForCES Functional Model
Draft about ForCES models:
-       How to represent models (on the wire and in the doc)?
-       How complex a capabilities model?
-       What Elements for the State Model?

Capabilites & State models should share representation & element
identification. Should we use a combined document / on the wire
representation (XML based?) Should we use an existing one (SMI, SPPI)
We should not build our own

Q? No opinion on which aspect is used. Instead up level the problem
that we're trying to solve by picking one of these solutions? What are
the requirements e.g. do things going on the wire must be small, easy
to troubleshoot,

Q: (Margaret) Want a language that is easy to use to pass the
information around.

A: (Joel): Important for the model draft to at least have the human
readable aspect. Important to also consider it from the protocol
angle.

Q: Some people want an open model where capabilities and state info
might be exchanged over existing protocol.

A: (Joel) Don't want to mix multiple protocols here. Hope for a
consistent framework for the control protocol.

Q: (Margaret): Don't think we're at the point to define the protocols
in the WG.

CAPABILITIES MODEL:
Current doc calls for a simple model, however
there is now existing work on which to base a more complex
capabilities model. Framework PIB Diff. Serv. QoS PIB.

Joel: Should we go for the simple case called for in the document or
should we make use of the capabilities information of the Framework
PIB & DiffServ. PIB on our framework? How complex the capability
model should we include? What is the language to define the
capabilities?

Q: What do we need to define the capabilities and not the language
only?
A: (Joel): Need to define the capabilities where we want
interoperability.

STATE MODEL
Need to build a good but not excessive set, DiffServ set would seem a
good starting point for QoS Also need a forwarding set (and forwarding
capabilities)

Q: (Sue)? How do you match the capabilities and the blocks? You have a
n x n matrix.
A: (Joel) No. Capabilities about a number of state elements.

Q: Doesn't work for the forwarding blocks, this FE link to this FE.
A: (Joel) Capabilities deal with Forwarding blocks. State model deals
with the blocks.

Q: Do we want an FE be controlled by two CE? If yes the model becomes
more complex. How does topology info between the interconnection of FE
interact with the protocol?

Q: FE wants to do mcast. FE from one block to n-blocks. CE setup the FE, mcast forwarding table.

A: (Joel) Disagreement on whether it works or not. Take if off line.

NetLink - Draft 03 (no presentation)
-------
Will declare last call completed if no comment

Requirement document - Draft 04 (Margaret presenting)
--------------------
Last call period ended on the meeting date
Changes:
High availability -> CE redundancy
Include possibility for multiple protocols
Added requirements to query statistics.

Last call comments:
Support both Capability & State model
Support for failure notifications from FE
Added text for off-loaded functions

Is last call complete? Design team thinks so. Doc will be forwarded

Applicability Statement (David presenting)
-----------------------
3 main changes to align Applicability stmt with Req. draft
        Added Purpose section
        Changed CE Redundancy/Failover to align with Requirements Draft
        Changed Sections on Locality, per rough consensus on list

Q: (Russ) - Draft don't say locality are that close (e.g. the room).
A: (David) Current language is that the Locality is very close (fate sharing)
    David will comment on the lest after checking the exact text.
Q: (Russ) Will propose some text to clarify.

Architectural framework (Lily presenting)
-----------------------
What's new?
CE Redundancy support
FE Topology examples
Message exchange examples

Q: (Alex): Routing/Forwarding table needs to be clarified. Who does
ARP need to be specified.

Q? (Chin Choi): What kinds of messages are exchanged between FE?
A: Mostly data packets that will be routed.

Fwd & Control Element Protocol (FACT)
No slides