| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
IF YOU WISH to be Removed from this reflector, PLEASE DO NOT send your request to this CLOSED reflector. We use this valuable tool to communicate on the issues at hand.
SELF SERVICE OPTION: Point your Browser to - http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-CAC and then amend your subscription on the form provided. If you require removal from the reflector press the LEAVE button.
Further information can be found at: http://www.ieee802.org/11/Email_Subscribe.html _______________________________________________________________________________
--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Chairs' Advisory Committee Reflector --- Notes from the 12/17 IEEE 802 - IETF coordination virtual meeting 1. Roll Call, Agenda Bashing, Minutes Approval ATTENDEES ------------------- Ross Callon, IAB Benoit Claise, IESG Spencer Dawkins, IAB Ralph Droms, IESG Adrian Farrel, IESG Eric Gray, IETF Liaison Manager to IEEE 802.1 Russ Housley, IETF Chair Tony Jeffree, 802.1 Chair Roger Marks, 802.16 Chair Cindy Morgan, IETF Secretariat Glenn Parsons, 802.1 vice chair, RAC chair, IEEE-SA BOG Dan Romascanu, IETF/IEEE-SA Liaison Michael Johas Teener, IEEE 802.1 Audio/Video Bridging Task Group Chair Geoff Thompson, 802.23 Chair and EC member Pat Thaler, 802 Vice-Chair REGRETS ------------------- Bernard Aboba, IAB Chair Subir Das, 802.21 Chair Howard Frazier, 802.3 MIB Task Group Chair Bruce Kraemer, IEEE 802.11 Chair Paul Nikolich, 802 Chair Pete Resnick, IESG Jon Rosdahl, 802 Executive Secretary, 802.11 Vice Chair Dorothy Stanley, 802.11 Liaison to IETF Sean Turner, IESG The minutes of the 10/29 virtual meeting are available at http://www.ietf.org/iesg/ieee/minutes-2012-10-29.txt. Dan: Everyone has seen the minutes of the Oct 29 meeting. Any modifications needed? [No changes-approved.] Spencer: Last IAB meeting, we agreed to add a joint activities section added to the IAB website to house the minutes. Dan: And other docs as well? Like the coordination doc? Spencer: Makes sense to me. Action: Spencer to get coordination materials posted on the IAB website. 2. Review of Other Action Items from Previous Meetings (not part of the shared items list) - John D'Ambrosia will add a page to the IEEE 802 website listing their current liaison relationships. Pat: As far as I know, that's still in process. Still working out some details. - The IEEE 802 will look at removing mailing list restrictions that prevent IETF participants from contributing to IEEE 802 work. Pat: Most of the mailing lists are open. Some of the ones that aren't I'm getting some resistance on from the list participants, with the response that people can email the WG chair and ask to be added. There's only 2 or 3 that are restricted. Has to do with different WG chairs' interpretations of how they can share the password for getting to drafts. Dan: 1) Can we try to close this action item and mention here that access to the IEEE 802 lists is either open or mediated by the WG chair. 2) Do we want to put this text in the 4441bis document to have a recording of the decision. Tony: Yes, I think so. Pat: I'll take the task to write some text for that. Dan: So this action item will be closed. 3. Preparations for the 3/16 face to face leadership meeting in Orlando Dan: The date has been sent for Saturday, March 16. 9-5, with breakfast starting at 8. Will work out other details and agenda as we get closer to the meeting. Russ: Ray is working with Buzz to sort out the booking details. Dan: Two other events happening in March, the tutorial on Sunday contributed by 802.1, and the technical plenary item that will be run by Glenn with support from the IAB. Suggest we discuss these as part of the coordination doc review. Russ: Technical Plenary will be on Monday, may be after lunch instead of as the last session of the day. Pat: We talked at one point about presenting the EDU session at one of the breakfasts for the ADs? Dan: Right, because the tutorial sessions on Sunday are in conflict with the IAB meeting. We were considering a special sub-set session of this to be given at one of the breakfasts during the week? Russ: I can schedule that if we still want to do it. How long needed? Pat: Shooting for 90 minutes for the tutorial, will have to compress that for the breakfast for no more than an hour. Ralph: what about the transition between the old and new IESG? We may have a few new ADs. Russ: NomCom selects new IESG, IAB members and a new IETF chair. During transition period new people are coming to speed but do not vote. I would suggest that both outgoing and incoming ADs attend. Would that raise concerns with the IEEE? Tony: I don?t think so. Pat: Understand the situation, better to bring them aboard faster. 4. RFC 4441bis - status report presented by Spencer Spencer: We're making some changes, expect a new revision early this week. The process is the IAB will adopt the doc, we can revise it, and then it will go out for a 4-week call for comments, and then it can be approved. We've gotten good input since the proviso version. It's going to be much more complete. Dan: When will this become an IAB doc? Spencer: I'll be asking them to adopt the version that comes out this week. 5. Areas of shared interest between the IETF and IEEE 802. Review of the list of items, status and action items - discussion led by Pat and Dan See http://www.ietf.org/iesg/ieee/20121217/coordination-04.txt [1. IETF TRILL Fine-grained labeling and IEEE 802.1 tags] Pat: I believe is that this can be retired. The ethertext has been changed in the draft to not be the 802 text. Russ: That's my understanding as well. Dan: Document seems stable and in good shape, so probably we are okay to close this. Ralph: I agree with the assessment that the doc is stable relative to the potential clash. Still working out the technical details of what they *will* do in the WG, but they know they won't clash. Agree we can close this. [2. IETF BFD and IEEE 802.1AX] Adrian: I believe the status is that we're progressing as expected and trying to communicate as much as possible with 802.1 as we go along. The BFD WG is not the fastest WG in the world, but I know the people involved are working on an interop event now, so there should be more to report in the new year. Dan: So we'll keep this open and continue to follow up. Adrian: Right, should keep it open all the way through WGLC just in case. Tony: Agreed. [3. IETF NVO3 and IEEE 802.1 DCB] Pat: Things are going fine, but we'll need to keep this open as things go along. Adrian: Agree. Dan: Liaison was sent, so keep this open for follow-up and intervention if necessary. [4. IETF awareness of IEEE 802.1Q-2011] Dan: Action item here is about organizing the EDU session. Pat: I expect to get something preliminary out this week. Dan: Outline to the EDU team by the end of this week. Pat: And if there is demand for something in addition to what we plan to cover already, then we can talk about maybe doing a future session on that. We're already planning to cram a lot into this session. Dan: Outline by the end of this week, the presentation shipped to the EDU team by end of January. And please make aware the other IEEE contributors that the EDU session is on Sunday, and if we do the executive session with IESG/IAB it will be one of the breakfast sessions during the week. [5. Effect of virtualization on IEEE 802 architecture] Ross: There were discussions in the IAB about this, as well as emails exchanged. If we have a plenary presentation, it will be very helpful if we have an internet-draft as well for people to refer to. So I believe Glenn is planning to put out an I-D before the IETF meeting. In terms of a conference call, we decided we didn't need one. To do: a brief plenary presentation and an I-D. Russ: Glenn and I have already exchanged email about everything you just said. And the grand finale of the plenary session will point people to the INTAREA meeting for further discussion. Glenn: I appreciate the efforts to increase the visibility on this. By then end of January/early February will have the draft. [6. IETF EMU and IEEE 802.1X, 802.11 and 802.16 security based on EAP 6.1. Description - CLOSED ] [7. IETF Ethernet MIB, ADSL MIB and IEEE 802.3] Benoit: We heard from the author, and going to have the document at the end of next week. I believe this one can be closed as soon as we have the doc. Dan: I'd keep it open for one cycle more. Sponsor ballot for IEEE went out this weekend, closes January 13. Need to enter my comments by then, and will need the draft to refer to. But until we have the resolution from the sponsor ballot, I'd rather keep this one open. Pat: Yes, I'm concerned about the transition timing. We'll have an 802 management doc that's about to close and do we take it out on an anticipated future draft? Instead of taking stuff out, put a note in that says this is expected to be transitioned to an IETF document. Benoit: This draft should actually be pretty easy. Maybe it will depend on the quality of the first version, but I think this should be done by the end of next week. Assuming that we have a good 00 draft next week, what do we do? Dan: Not everything is in our hands. I enter my comments, and the IEEE can decide what to do with that. We can make a recommendation, but we cannot make a decision because it's not in our purview. Pat: It's hard to say when we don't have the draft yet. If it's a working group draft before the MIB meeting that would be helpful. Benoit: Meeting is January 25. So will look at the draft and follow up with the OPSAWG chairs about making it a WG item. [8. IETF 6LOWPAN and IEEE 802.15] Ralph: I've been in touch with Clint Powell, we agree we should keep each other informed. As far as I know, there's no work in the WG that has any impact on the IETF at this time. Dan: Is Tom Herbst officially nominated as the liaison to the IETF? Ralph: I don't have any confirmation recently that that is the case; haven't got anything back from Tom. Pat: We should identify which 802.15 SG? Ralph: It's L2R mesh under forwarding, Layer 2 Routing. Dan: So this one stays open. [9. IETF PAWS WG and 802.11, 802.19, 802.22] Dan: Bruce not here to report. PAWS has coordination with IEEE WG in its charter, and we wanted to make sure that documents are being circulated as PAWS makes progress. Right now we've clarified with the 802 WGs, and the action item is on the PAWS WG to make those WGs aware about milestones in the documents as they are being reached successfully as Last Call items. So this stays open, and most of the communication is being done by a couple of people who are participating in both organizations. Dan: We'll keep this open. [10. IETF IPPM and LMAP, and IEEE 802.16 Metrology Study Group] Roger: I sent a couple of updates on this one, going to delete the references to the SG since there is an active PAR. I think we should keep this open because there is going to be ongoing communication. LMAP is an IETF mailing list at the moment, may be a WG or merge with IPPM. But should keep this open in any case. [11. IETF Mobile IP and IEEE 802.16 HetNet Study Group] Roger: That needs to be updated a little as well. HetNet SG completed its work. One other thing that's been discussed is the idea of tutorial update that might be presented somewhere to IETF at the March meeting. 802 will discuss at their meeting in January. Dan: An informational presentation, probably in the INT Area? Dan: So this stays open, the SG will inform the IEF following their meeting in January if they are requesting a discussion slot in the INT Area meeting. [12. IETF HOKEY and IEEE 802.21 12.1. Description CLOSED] [13. IETF MIF and IEEE 802.21] Dan: Mail exchanged with Subir? Ralph: There was a discussion at the MIF WG regarding a draft describing the relationship of the work in MIF and in 802.21. Agree that there is some overlap, but not clear to what degree yet. A couple of different potential architectures proposed and discussed. Not ready to close this yet. [14. IETF IPFIX Information Elements for Data Link monitoring] Dan: Doc was sent for review? Benoit: There was a small mistake, so extended the LC to get feedback. No feedback on the IPFIX mailing list yet. Tony: Problem of timing, request came in during our last meeting after the closing date for comments, so it didn't get discussion time in the November plenary meeting. Not really an opportunity for collective comments on this until March now. Pat: Even though there is a call with a closing date, I think if one has comments one should just go ahead. Tony: And we encouraged that, but no one has in this case. Dan: So, how stuck is IPFIX approval process because of this? And also, I think we need to understand that for such cases that happen in between meetings, even if accidents do not happen, a procedural problem during a very busy week of meetings, how can we work to get faster answers without waiting for the plenary meeting to get the official response? Tony: I think the way is to circulate it to the WG and ask if individual experts have comments to make to please do so. Benoit: In the IETF we have directorates where we get feedback from a couple of experts rather than the entire WG; do you have anything like that? Pat: Yes, and in this case we asked people to bring it up in the meeting, and I sent an email to the reflector and we haven't seen any responses to either of those. At some point if no one feels energized or upset enough by a document to comment, you just go ahead. Ross: Sometimes in progressing docs in WGs, the chairs have to call on individuals to ask them if they can review it, and sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't. Benoit: So what is the conclusion? What to do for this one, and what to do in general? Dan: How badly are you missing this feedback right now? Is it holding you back? Benoit: Yes, because we finished the Last Call, and we extended it because we didn't send the liaison fast enough, so now we are in this situation. Tony: I think in the absence of comments from the 802 side, you should simply proceed. Benoit: OK. And we still have the IETF Last Call to go through, so if you have some reply from your members, it still could be taken into account. Pat: I'm confused that the doc mentions 802.1 BR but then doesn't have anything about that in it? Dan: Right, that's the kind of thing that would only be picked up by someone familiar with 802. Dan: Will leave this open and wait for more comments. [15. IETF RADIUS attributes for IEEE 802 networks] Dan: I know that Bernard mentioned comments received from 802.11 Benoit: Bernard mentioned he received feedback and was expecting more, but haven't seen more except from one individual on the list, from Dan Harkins. Pat: I guess 802.11 did submit comments. Dan: The document was forwarded to the members of the Security TF in 802.1. So we should probably wait and come back to this if we don't get an answer in the coming weeks. Benoit: It seems to be a case of being in between meetings, so do we want to set a deadline? Dan: Also have the holidays in the next couple of weeks, so probably the first week of January unless we get answers by then. Pat: At this point, I think the people who need to be informed has been informed, so we just have to ping them again. [16. IEEE802.1Q SRP (and Gen2 updates) and RSVP/SIP] Michael: The big thing that we're working on is how to provide time sensitivity and optimization for layer 2 networks. The idea is that we're not trying to get an [muffled audio]. Currently there are only 2 classes, a performance-type application. So that's all done and is pretty successful, professional video people. However it doesn't address some of the goals that other people want to for this. The kind of time-aware or sensitive networks. Want different types of traffic optimized, most of these requirements from industrial controls, those types of environments. [Muffled audio.] There is no interaction going on with RSVP. Dan: So you would like to have one or more IETF experts designated to having a look at the documents that are work in progress, and discussing with the stakeholders in IEEE and providing expert reviews? Michael: Yes, that's what we'd like to see. Dan: Do you want this to happen when you get to WG ballot, or earlier? Not sure of the status of this work. What is the moment when engagement would be the most efficient? Michael: I think it would be useful if we could find the names of some people who are interested in acting as technical liaisons between the groups. I'm willing to do the reach-out, I'm just not sure where to do it. Dan: Think you need to engage with the Transport and possibly also the Real-Time Applications and Infrastructure (RAI) areas, and so I think we should take this package of 3 items (16-18) and forward to the TSV and RAI ADs and ask them for their input. They may delegate the work out from there. Adrian: I think that's exactly the right thing to do. [17. IEEE 802.1AS/1588 and NTP] (see 16) [18. 802.1AS/1588, 802.1Q time aware shaper(s) and RTP] (see 16) [19. Common OAM proposal] Ralph: Had a conversation with the TRILL WG, they're going to progress the work for OAM for TRILL by progressing a requirements doc then a framework doc. If at that point they decided to go with an 802.1 base, they will go back to 802.1 and make sure that it doesn't infringe on the 802.1 OAM. But have to get the requirements and framework done first. Dan: So we keep this open, with no immediate action. [20. Area Name - use of TRILL as an alternative path selection protocol for use in 802.11 mesh networks] Dan: This was added since the last meeting, about using TRILL as an alternative path selection protocol for use in 802.11 mesh networks. Ralph: We had a couple of teleconferences to talk about the situation. Right now, the way it's been left is that 802 will look at the work and see if it meets the work cases, and after a decision has been made if there are requirements and interest in using TRILL, they will come to the TRILL WG and ask them to participate in a design that uses them as a path selection mechanism. But still trying to figure out where the work will live in 802 first. Dan: So no immediate action. Ralph: Right, leave it open but no immediate action. Dan: And this will be discussed at the interim meeting in January? Pat: Right. Dan: So we'll probably hear updates in February about this from the interim meeting. Ralph: We want to see what comes out of 802.1 and 802.11 before it comes to the IETF. 6. Action Items recap Action: Spencer to get coordination materials posted on the IAB website. Action: Pat to provide text to Spencer for 4441bis about access of IETF participants to the IEEE 802 lists (either open, or mediated by WG chairs) Action: Russ to check with IAB about scheduling recap of IEEE 802.1Q-2011 EDU session for IAB/IESG members who will miss the Sunday session ? DONE, the exec session is scheduled for Monday morning 7:45 (breakfast starts at 7), duration one hour. Action: Dan to forward items 16-18 from the coordination list to TSV and RAI ADs and ask for input (CC Michael). 7. Next virtual meeting possible dates Dan: Next call will be our last meeting before the F2F in March. Looking at the week of February 11, Monday or Tuesday. Anything going on that week that would prevent a large number of you from participating? I'll put out the slots and we'll pick the date and time. _______________________________________________________________________________ IF YOU WISH to be Removed from this reflector, PLEASE DO NOT send your request to this CLOSED reflector. We use this valuable tool to communicate on the issues at hand. SELF SERVICE OPTION: Point your Browser to - http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-CAC and then amend your subscription on the form provided. If you require removal from the reflector press the LEAVE button. Further information can be found at: http://www.ieee802.org/11/Email_Subscribe.html _______________________________________________________________________________
--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Chairs' Advisory Committee Reflector --- _______________________________________________ ieee-ietf-coord mailing list ieee-ietf-coord@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieee-ietf-coord _______________________________________________________________________________ IF YOU WISH to be Removed from this reflector, PLEASE DO NOT send your request to this CLOSED reflector. We use this valuable tool to communicate on the issues at hand. SELF SERVICE OPTION: Point your Browser to - http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-CAC and then amend your subscription on the form provided. If you require removal from the reflector press the LEAVE button. Further information can be found at: http://www.ieee802.org/11/Email_Subscribe.html _______________________________________________________________________________