CURRENT_MEETING_REPORT_


Reported by Mark Knopper/Merit Network

Minutes of the Extensions to OSI for use in the Internet BOF (OSIEXTND)


Dave Katz presented the following slides to the group.  Comments interjected
by the recording secretary are [bracketed].

Motivation
   Plenty of technical work to do
   Expertise is here
   Work will benefit from IETF process
   Liaison relationship likely
   Liaison relationship likely to take awhile
   Experience shows that work transfers

Goals
   Functional, tested protocols
   Further deployment of OSI suite
   SINGLE technical specification
   Progression into ISO/ITU communities
   Backward compatibility
   Concentrate on Network Layer
   Open specifications on line

[There should be significant liaison with TUBA working group
for application and transport layers over CLNP.]

Mechanism
   Zero or more new working groups
   Maintain unofficial relationships with ISO, national bodies
   Utilize official relationships when they are in place
   Forward work through these channels
   [There are good channels even with unofficial relationships.]
   Cooperation between IETF, IS bodies likely

Liaison Status
   Memorandum of understanding between ISOC, ISO to be written
   Liaison class (A or C) unclear (does it matter?)

[Many people agreed that the relationship status does not matter.
Pragmatic technical interactions are most important.  What role would
other standards organizations take in this arrangement?]

[NOOP, TUBA and ANSI X3S3.3 committees are doing work.]

[Jack Houldsworth was present, representing ISO/JTC1. He works for ICL. JTC1
has endorsed the idea of relationship. Jack can carry documents from IETF to
ISO using informal liaison. ISO is very keen to get this work done.]

Standards Status [(for network layer)]
   Multicast
      Addressing to IS in Seoul [will include group addressing semantics]
      CLNP, IS-IS PDAM ballot closing
      Early work on scope control [including automated methods of
            constraining recipient sets for multicast]
      No work on routing [yet]
      [Multicast IS-IS needed. The intent is to leverage off of
       ongoing work in IETF.]

   IDRP to IS in Seoul

[The rate at which documents progress is proportional to the amount of
work the authors and their organizations are willing to undertake to
manage the process.  At IETF there is more implementation up front.
That is also beginning to happen with ISO standards. There is a
timeline convergence happening between ISO and IETF.]

Possible areas of work

Multicast (network layer)
   anycast
   multicast routing
   structured addressing
   ES-IS

CLNP extensions
   QoS fixes [How useful are QoS features in existing spec?  2nd edition
              CLNP ballot to be discussed in Seoul]
   provider loose source route
   fix loose source route
   header compression
   MTU discovery
   flows, resource reservation

IS-IS extensions
   Multiprotocol [Part of original IS-IS WG charter]
   Metric expansion

IDRP extensions
   New attributes [IDRP has the capability of tunneling new attributes
       through routers that don't understand them, if appropriate]

ES-IS extensions
   System ID in address administration [for dynamic address assignment.
       Allows host to drive address assignment process.]

IDRP/IS-IS interaction

PPP LCP/NCP for OSI network layer

Host configuration protocols

EON

Mobility

Large network support
   CLNP
   routing
[Radia Perlman of DEC has written documents on CLNP over
SMDS. This is an internet draft. There is another document that is SMDS-
specific available from SMDS Interest Group.]


The group agreed that a letter should be written to ISO, based on the
presentation and discussion, stating that the IETF has sufficient
expertise to contribute to these areas.  Dave Katz and Dave Piscitello
will draft a document.

This work spans about six IETF working groups.

BGP and IPIDRP Working Groups are meeting jointly (IDRP is BGP5).  IDRP
for SIP is being considered.

Phill Gross expressed concern over the apparent danger of having
different IETF and ISO standards for protocols.  ISO has more precedence
for accepting standards from other groups without change.  IETF tends to
change or rewrite protocols before acceptance.  Peter Furniss said that
the Internet-Draft process will be appreciated by ISO.

Mark Knopper has created a discussion list, [email protected].  Those
interested in being added to the list should send a request to
[email protected].

Phill Gross suggested to identify work that could be done by existing
IETF working groups, as well as that which could be done by this group
if it is to become a working group.

CLNP over Large Public Data Networks (LPDN) is an area which needs
consideration.  Much of the work is done.  ES-IS and IS-IS protocols
over LPDNs needs further work.  Note that as of this IETF, the IPLPDN
Working Group has ended their work.  Perhaps CLNPLPDN could be handled
as a BOF with identified base documents.

The consensus of the BOF attendees was that a working group should be
formed from these ideas, and relationships should be pursued with ISO.
Dave Piscitello and Dave Katz have drafted a letter and will send it to
the IESG, IAB, and ISO (through Jack Houldsworth).


Attendees

Nick Alfano              [email protected]
Bernt Allonen            [email protected]
Rebecca Bostwick         [email protected]
Jim Bound                [email protected]
Ross Callon              [email protected]
George Chang             [email protected]
A. Lyman Chapin          [email protected]
Richard Colella          [email protected]
Dave Cullerot            [email protected]
Toerless Eckert          [email protected]
Dino Farinacci           [email protected]
Peter Ford               [email protected]
Peter Furniss            [email protected]
Phillip Gross            [email protected]
Chris Gunner             [email protected]
Susan Hares              [email protected]
Denise Heagerty          [email protected]
Jack Houldsworth         [email protected]
Chris Howard             [email protected]
Geoff Huston             [email protected]
David Jacobson           [email protected]
Philip Jones             [email protected]
Cyndi Jung               [email protected]
Anders Karlsson          [email protected]
Dave Katz                [email protected]
Sean Kennedy             [email protected]
Mark Knopper             [email protected]
Rajeev Kochhar           [email protected]
Ton Koelman              [email protected]
John Krawczyk            [email protected]
Robin Littlefield        [email protected]
David Marlow             [email protected]
David O'Leary            [email protected]
Christian Panigl         [email protected]
Alex Reijnierse          [email protected]
Victor Reijs             [email protected]
Georg Richter            [email protected]
John Scudder             [email protected]
Keith Sklower            [email protected]
John Stewart             [email protected]
Kamlesh Tewani           [email protected]
Richard Thomas           [email protected]
Marcel Wiget             [email protected]
Douglas Williams         [email protected]
Rachel Willmer           [email protected]



Attachment:  Letter to the IESG and IAB



To:   IESG, IAB
From: David Piscitello (Bellcore), David Katz (Cisco)
RE:   Recommendations from"Extensions to OSI for use in the
     Internet" (osiextnd) BOF regarding future CLNP activities in the
     IETF.

During the "Extensions to OSI for use in the Internet (OSIEXTND)"
BOF, attendees identified a number of areas where the IETF might
apply its experience and expertise to complement and enhance the
ongoing work within ISO/IEC and the ITU-TS relating to ISO/IEC
8473 (CLNP). David Katz and David Piscitello were chartered by the
BOF to annotate the list with Internet activities and standards that
are or might be relevant to these areas. The results and
recommendations are as follows.

1)  Multicasting (network layer)

ISO/IEC JTC1/SC6/WG2 is currently working on a multicast
architecture, addressing scheme and protocol for CLNP. The
IETF has made considerable progress in the area of multicast
(see in particular RFCs 1112, 1458) within several of its
working groups. A working group is likely to be formed within
the IETF to address "anycast" (the ability to deliver traffic to
one member of a group), multicast routing, the use of
structured multicast addresses, and multicast extensions to the
ES-IS protocol for CLNP.

2)  Extensions to ISO/IEC 8473 and its routing architecture:

The IETF has acquired considerable CLNP deployment
experience. The coordinating body for developing a CLNP
infrastructure for the Internet is the Network OSI Operations
working group (NOOP). Based on the deployment of CLNP and
more recently, TCP/UDP atop CLNP (TUBA), the IETF has
identified several extensions to CLNP (improvements to quality
of service support, provider loose source routing, amendments
to the current partial source routing parameter); Intradomain
IS-IS protocol (multiprotocol support, routing metric
expansion); Interdomain routing protocol (new attributes,
IDRP/IS-IS interaction), and ES-IS (provision of system
identification in address administration). OSIEXTND will seek
working group status within the IETF to continue this work.

3)  Link and network layer control protocols for operation of CLNP
   over point-to-point subnetworks

The IETF has developed a set of protocols that enable link
negotiation, authentication, and operation of multiple network
layer protocols (IP, IPX, CLNP, etc.) over point-to-point
subnetworks. This work exists either as Internet standards or
standards in progress (see in particular RFCs 1331 and 1337).
Attendees to OSIEXTND recommend that the IESG/IAB/ISOC
encourage ISO/IEC and ITU-TS to study these standards as
potential future joint standards between the ISOC, ISO/IEC, and
ITU-TS.

4)  CLNP header compression and MTU discovery

The IETF has developed a method of compressing IP headers
for low-speed serial links to maximize throughput across such
links (RFC 1144); equivalent methods need to be developed for
CLNP based on the experience acquired by the IETF.  Similarly,
the IETF has developed a method for determining the
maximum transmission unit size that may be used between IP
hosts connected across a multi-hop internetwork route (RFC
1191); an equivalent means should be developed for deriving
the maximum subnetwork service data unit size for CLNP.
Attendees to OSIEXTND expect that a working group will be
formed to address these mechanisms and solicit contributions
in these areas.

5)  CLNP "flows", resource reservation

The IETF is examining the notions of flows and resource
reservation (packet sequencing, allocation of bandwidth,
processing, etc. to source-destination pairs across an internet).
Attendees to OSIEXTND believe that the work developed for IP
is very likely to be directly applicable to CLNP, and expect to
participate actively in this work.

6)  Host configuration protocols

The IETF has standards in progress that allow hosts to be
installed and configured with a minimum of manual
intervention.  Similar work is being pursued in ISO/IEC.
Attendees to OSIEXTND believe that aspects of the work
developed for IP are likely to be applicable to CLNP, and
expects that a working group will be formed to enhance
functionality in this area.

7)  Mobility

The IETF is currently exploring methods of supporting host
mobility.  Attendes to OSIEXTND believes that the approaches
being developed can be directly applied to CLNP, and expect to
participate actively in this work.

Attendees to OSIEXTND believe that the work outlined in items (4) -
(7)  is very likely to be directly applicable to CLNP, and recommend
that the IESG/IAB/ISOC encourage ISO/IEC and ITU-TS to study and
possibly participate in this work.


Respectfully,

________________                    ________________
David Piscitello                         David Katz

You are viewing proxied material from ftp.icm.edu.pl. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.