WG Document Status 192nd IETF TEAS Working Group

draft-ietf-teas-fast-lsps- requirements From: Brain Wilson, 10 Mar 2015 Open issues: o None known Next steps: o Soliciting WG review and comments o 92nd IETF TEAS Working Group2

draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-lsp-fastreroute From: Rakesh Gandhi, 17 Mar 2015 o This draft was adopted as a TEAS working group in December'14. Authors have updated the draft to address the comments received from the WG during the adoption poll. Open issues: o Not aware of any. Next steps: o We would appreciate additional WG review and comments. 92nd IETF TEAS Working Group3

draft-ietf-teas-interconnected-te-info-exchange Pending work and issues o No more “Editor notes” o No more TBD o Needs full review by authors What can we delete? o Is this really Standards Track or should it move to Informational? Question from mailing list – authors don’t care! o WG review o WG last call 92nd IETF TEAS Working Group4 From: Adrian Farrel, 17 Mar 2015, off list Revisions o Adopted by CCAMP WG (November 2014) o CCAMP 00 Posted without changes from individual I-D o CCAMP 01 Minor editorial changes as picked up during poll for adoption o Transferred to TEAS (December 2014) o TEAS 00 Repost of CCAMP 01 o TEAS 01 Security Considerations text o TEAS 02 Completed missing sections, tweaked text, addressed comments received on list See next slide

Changes in latest revision Added Section "Mutual Exclusivity“ o Pavan suggested about a page and a half on the list o Reduced to 2/3 page o This is something of a corner case of abstraction layer links that compete for server layer resources Filled in Section 5.4 about Dynamic Abstraction o Cautionary words about the instability caused by dynamic abstraction Filled in Section 5.6 about Address Management o Deborah had raised the question of different or overlapping address spaces o Text says this is OK, but address mapping must be done at layer/network boundaries New Section 6.4 "Notes on a Solution" using material from John Drake and Hannes Gredler o This may be too much waffle! o The message is: You can do this with today’s protocols You might need a few additional attributes in routing Filled in Section 11 "Manageability Considerations“ o This may also be too much text, but the IESG is looking for a description of management o Manage the layers o Manage the interfaces between layers Minor tweaks to Section 13 for Security Considerations o Xian sent comments on the text in -01 o Nothing major Fixed a number of stylistic and typographic issues. o Still amazes me how garbled text sneaks in! 92nd IETF TEAS Working Group5

Work plan Authors review, discussions, and text deletion o IETF week o A draft is complete when everything that can be removed has been removed New revision (if needed) o Today plus 14 days Ready for WG last call o Today + 15 days 92nd IETF TEAS Working Group6

draft-ietf-teas-network-assigned- upstream-label From: Vishnu Pavan Beeram, 19 Mar 2015 o A new version was published recently. The following are the diffs - o Section Change MUST->SHOULD “In such a scenario, if the ingress client receives a changed label via the LABEL object in a RESV modify, it SHOULD retune the laser at the ingress to the new wavelength. Similarly if the egress client receives a changed label via UPSTREAM_LABEL/LABEL_SET in a PATH modify, it SHOULD retune the laser at the egress to the new wavelength.” o Added Zafar Ali to the list of contributors Open issues: o None Next Steps: o Request further review from the WG 92nd IETF TEAS Working Group7

draft-ietf-teas-p2mp-loose-path-reopt From: Rakesh Gandhi, 17 Mar 2015 o This draft was adopted as an MPLS working group document and transferred to the new TEAS working group in December'14. Authors have made editorial/cleanup changes to this document since the last IETF meeting in November'14 and believe it is ready for the WG LC. Open issues: o Not aware of any. Next steps: o Requesting WG LC. 92nd IETF TEAS Working Group8

draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-egress-protection From: Huaimo Chen, 13 Mar 2015 o We addressed the comments from Lou in this version. We believe that this draft is ready for WGLC. Any new comments and suggestions are welcome. 92nd IETF TEAS Working Group9

draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-ingress-protection From: Huaimo Chen, 13 Mar 2015 o There are two methods for a backup ingress to get the information to provide protection for the primary ingress of an LSP in the draft. One method needs to be selected. After this is resolved, the draft is ready for WGLC. Question: (From chairs) o What is your plan for resolving the major open issue on this document? 92nd IETF TEAS Working Group10

draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-domain-subobjects From: Dhruv Dhody, 14 Mar 2015 o There are no pending actions, or open issues. o The draft was pending the progress of its companion Domain Sequence document [2] in PCE WG; which in tern was pending the progress of the IRO update draft [3], which has been adopted by PCE WG. [1] [2] [3] Next steps: o It was decided to progress the documents together; In the opinion of the authors, the document set is ready to progress to the next step. 92nd IETF TEAS Working Group11

draft-ietf-teas-te-express-path From: Alia Atlas, 20 Mar 2015 o This draft has been stable for a couple years. It has companion documents in OSPF (RFC 7471) and ISIS (draft-ietf-isis-te-metric-extensions-04 which is in WG Last Call).draft-ietf-isis-te-metric-extensions-04 Open issues: o I don't know of any open items. Please do read and comment! Next steps: o I'd be happy to see this progress to WG Last Call. I think it is ready. o If you have a chance and interest, please do review and send comments to the list. 92nd IETF TEAS Working Group12

draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect From: Matt Hartley, 12 Mar 2015 o Current status: WG LC complete Open issues: o Comments received from Shepherd/Chair* Next steps: o Finish current cleanup/idnits, progress to AD review and move towards publication. o We hope to get this done very soon. 92nd IETF TEAS Working Group13

draft-ietf-teas-te-metric-recording From: Matt Hartley, 19 Mar 2015 o waiting on draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect. Since this draft is similar to the SRLG-recording in terms of mechanisms, use-cases, etc we're waiting until the SRLG draft is though the IETF process as any comments made for that draft are likely to apply to this one too. Once that's done, this one will follow. Open issues: o None Next steps: o hopefully the SRLG draft will go to AD review and beyond in the near future; when that's done this draft will resume progress towards WG LC. In the meantime, further review and comments from the WG would be appreciated. 92nd IETF TEAS Working Group14