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 list 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