call 5/3/16 notes
Start: 5/3/2016 08:00 PDT
End: 5/3/2016 09:04 PDT
Present:
Jouni Korhonen
Bomin Li
Brian Torley
Kevin Bross
Ofir Mahazri
Rami Al-obaidi
Richard Maiden
Richard Tse
Xhafer Kraniqi
Yasser Bajwa
Steinar Bjornstad
Stefano ?
John Messenger
Actual agenda:
* Aftermath of the last week f2f meeting
* RoE OEM PDU input (Richard M.)
* Producing the D1.0 of the spec
Discussion:
* Jouni wentr through quickly what happened and what was
decided/agreed during last week f2f meeting in San Jose.
* Jouni pointed out that during the transition phase from
1904 wg to 1914 wg the work continues as usual and even
after that there won't be changes. The move is likely to
happen earliest after the summer (due IEEE process and
various board timelines).
* Richard presented his thoughts on the RoE OAM PDU format.
* Jouni commented that we should use the exsiting formats
already done in IEEE. Example being 802.1AB clause 8.4
TLV formar for LLDP among others.
(http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=7433915)
* John Messenger also pointed out that 802.3-2012 clause 57
has the management sublayer describe. Would be good to
look at there as well what has been done in order to
avoind issues that have already been solved.
(https://standards.ieee.org/getieee802/download/802.3-2012.zip)
* John asked whether the OAM is specific to Ethernet. Jouni
commented that there is no such requirement. The solution
should work on any transport that carries RoE.
* Jouni reminded that we are only going to define the generic
packetization of the management / control information. The
possible protocol including statemachines are for a new
project to do.
* It was encouraged to look into generic ways of encapsulating
configurations / parameters using formats that are already
implemented as part of the generic Ethernet solutions.
* Discussion about missing things. Richard M. asked about
PICS. That is to be added but at the moment a place
holder should suffice. We need to get the rest of the
spec done before that.
* Yasser and John commented that we should describe which
possible parameters are settable. Not all of them need
to be (e.g., for security reasons).
* Richard asked about changing the RoE connection/flow
related parameters and whether that can be done on an
active connection/flow. This came up on the context of
TS and SN, and whether those can be changed on an active
connection/flow.
* It was clarified that a RoE connection/flow only uses
either the SN or the TS, not intermixing both. The sync
of a TS to SN can be done out of band e.g., using the
control packet approach.
* Yasser commented that it simplifies the solution if
parameters are only (in most cases) applied to a new
RoE copnnection/flow. Jouni agrees.
* AP to Yasser to add required fields into the draft spec
to indicate which parameters can be settable and which
just readable.
* Richard to produce the D1.0 for the next call.. or that
is the goal at least.
* Jouni pointed out that after D1.0 we move to TF review
phase, where the commenting is much more formal, thus
editor spending more time getting e.g., the language
proper save a lot on 'pure grammar related comments'.
Next Call:
* 5/17/2016 8AM PDT