Raw Status PagesReliable and Available Wireless (Active WG)
Rtg Area: Alvaro Retana, Deborah Brungard, Martin Vigoureux | 2020-Feb-07 —Chairs:
IETF-108 raw minutes
Session 2020-07-30 1100-1240: Room 4 - Audio stream - raw chatroom
# RAW WG Minutes - IETF 108 Date: Thursday, July 30, 2020 Time: 11:00-12:40 UTC -- 100mins Chairs: Rick Taylor Eve Schooler Responsible AD: Deborah Brungard Meetecho: http://www.meetecho.com/ietf108/raw Live minutes: https://codimd.ietf.org/notes-ietf-108-raw Jabber: https://www.ietf.org/jabber/logs/raw/2020-07-30.html Time Zone conversion: https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html?iso=20200730T110000&p1=1240 ## 1) Intro -- 11:00 10 mins - Reminder of IPR policies * Eve presents the note well and suggests all to contribute to the minutes with Ethan - Current drafts - Milestones and Charter (Chairs) * Rick presents drafts for which adoption was requested * Milestones call for horizontal docs independant of technologies * Still we have specialization on particular technologies * Q: How do we align charter and the personal drafts ? * * Rick: Changing charter not considered a good idea, changing milestones OK. * Pascal: LT1 working on abstract compression mechanism. Produced info doc on technologies considered to find common abstraction on which to base design. Can't work without knowledge of technologies. Need baseline of underlying tech. So we need this milestone. * Eve: Chairs agree with you. In parallel not to stop anything in RAW. * Eve: Also overlap of authors between the two groups' OAM drafts. * Rick: Regarding OAM: Generic in DetNet, RAW specific. * Pascal: Was in DetNet since start. DetNet OAM is actually a subset of RAW OAM req'ts. So should keep separate OAM docs and eventually merge. Too difficult to have all potentially common things approved by DetNet. * Lou: Discussed on Monday in DetNet, general agreement in meeting: Generic portion of OAM which is common (to both DetNet and RAW) would proceed in DetNet, RAW specific OAM consideration should progress in RAW. To be clear, there was no intent to limit RAW specific discussions in RAW. * Rick: Intent is to split docs and work in parallel. Need to to take to list. * Rick: Authors of LDACS and 5G, the tech vertical drafts - do we ask them to contribute tech-agnostic components of those to Pascal Tech draft? * LDACS is already included in Pascal's technology draft in Section 7 * Janos: 5G already moving to RAW technologies draft, as well * Pascal: For Technologies doc we are asking to provide specific format so that we can derive a generic format common to all. Not trying to be exhaustive on each. So individual drafts are free form - but the tech draft is different. * Rick: Need to continue in WG. * Eve: Out of time need to move on. ## 2) Use cases -- 11:10 ->10 mins https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bernardos-raw-use-cases-04 - (Carlos Bernardos) * Carlos presents use cases * Rick: Draft was adopted and not affected by reorg so please rename (to draft-ietf-raw-use-cases-00, implicitly) ## 3) 802.11 update on TSN and Localization -- 11:20 ->20 mins - (Dave Cavalcanti and Ganesh Venkatesan) * Dave: new opportunities in automation where Wi-Fi does not lay today * Documented use cases and requirements; relates to use cases in RAW * 802.11ax enables 802.1Qbv with scheduling capabilities and OFDMA blocks (RU) * Also 6MHz band in US and in process for many countries * Intro to Wi-Fi 7 (.11be) * Lou: With WiFi7, How is QoS provisioned and/or controlled? * Dave: Updates in WF7 include a way for stations to negotiate QoS and do admission control based on that. Low latency and high rel also negotiated. New signalling for that. New enhancments to channel access (admission control). Time aware scheduling. * Eduard Vasilenko: 1/2 or 1/3 ms were shown. Want 5ms latency. In 3gpp have budget due to long fiber, hundreds of km. Could be in diff't cities. But in these applications distance is typically less than 20km. Note that speed of light in fiber is 5ms/km. So is designed for local communication, no budget for long distance for fiber. * Dave: Latency can be few hundred usec, mostly based on user requirements targeting end to end with these low values. * Rick: Please continue on list. * Rick: You have presented a number of IEEE use case analyses - can we make sure these use cases are integrated into RAW use cases? * Dave: Yes some are already included, some in progress. ## 4) LDACS -- 11:40 ->10 mins https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-maeurer-raw-ldacs-04 - (Nils Maeurer) * Nils presents the LDACS technology * Rick: Question for authors: Are you asking for WG adoption? * Nils: Yes. * Rick: OK we will make that request on the list. ## 5) Architecture and Technologies -- 11:50 ->25 mins https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pthubert-raw-architecture-04 https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thubert-raw-technologies-05 - (Pascal Thubert) * Technologies doc: * Rick: Will ask for WG adoption on list. Addresses concerns about (too) many specific tech docs - should update WG goals to include this work. * Architecture doc: * Greg Mirsky: Out of band OAM: counter collector or telemetry collector? Or active OAM packets? BFD? * Pascal: Yes both. If OAM packet from out to in (right to left) flood collector. Captures all measurements along the way, aggregate, send to source. BFD is one way to do this. To see transmission quality from ingress to egress, use BFD. Not a serial path, doing this graph, to be defined. Observe one track vs whole system. * Greg: Do you consider BFD in or out of band? * Pascal: Out of band. A sort of ping. * Greg: If out of band doesn't reflect experience of traffic? * Pascal: Importance is that OAM can piggy back with data packet, or separate, which doesn't experience flow, but collects the measurements along the way. Packet treatment is not the flow. Need to discuss on list. Multiple flows can be treated the same way. * Rick: this is a general OAM question - need to look at what other groups are doing with OAM. * Lou: From the discussion at the BOF and at time of chartering, my understanding is that RAW provides adaptation from general DetNet to wireless subnet technologies. But picture implies whole world is RAW. Slide 7/8. Would like to see context with DetNet in Architecture doc. * Pascal: We're not inside DetNet anymore. * Lou: Need to make sure WG is aligned (on that notion). Please address prior session comments in future versions. (not said at mic, from jabber: document should also cover how do you see raw working with the capabilities of the radio network, e.g., the new wifi capabilities described earlier in the session - with their own version of PAREO?) * (Last slide) * Pascal: Apologies, but comments made in BOF were not fully captured; I attempted to address everything on list. Need to request repeat of outstanding comments. ## 6) OAM -- 12:15 ->15 mins https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-theoleyre-raw-oam-support-03 - (Fabrice Theoleyre) * Pascal: Need to sync with DetNet docs. Pointers hard to read, maybe bring in content to be more self-sufficient. * Rick: Re OAM split between generic OAM vs RAW or DetNet specific. Proposal is to keep this doc for RAW specific. Should have normative reference to DetNet version to keep * Lou: Implicit in Pascal's comment: Scope of RAW: Is it superset or subset of DetNet. Really need to agree on this. * Rick: We have been asked by ADs to keep RAW under current charter as short and focused as possible, to achieve near term results, thus must limit scope. So it is strictly wireless subset of DetNet. But after that work is completed, could recharter to do more work. Could continue discussion on list. * Pascal: Was initially like that but with multi-access, care about wireless part. Get info from destination, across non-deterministic link. If out of scope for DetNet, then need to decide if this is in scope for RAW. * Lou: (from jabber) it is in scope IMO * Deborah Brungard: Need to address gaps in DetNet that would need to be addressed in RAW. ## 7) Discussion -- 12:30 ->10 mins - (Out of time, session concluded. Please use mailing list. Good since archived to record debate as well as decision, helpful for future implementers.) * Eve: We now have 4 docs to be approved, others to be taken to list. * Pascal: When upload minutes, can provide link to codimd, or save as .md file but mime type used to upload was different so tool would reject it. Can save HTML from codimd, and uploading that worked. * Rick: Pascal are you asking for adoption for this draft? * Lots of great content in there, may become one or more docs. Has value for working group. * Lou: Need to define scope you are trying to solve before you adopt Architecture draft. As wireless people assumption that world is wireless, but that isn't always the perspective. E.g. for PREOF, where do you need your own version rather than useing existing. * Rick: Raw developed thoughts about end to end path metrics are used for availability, can I even send the data? * Lou: Are reliability and availability not pretty much the same, about delivering packets? * Pascal: Most of wireless is not mesh, so if just focus on that isn't so useful. But wifi, 5g, want to know which to use to save energy, money. * Lou: From abstract case that is similar to wired case, two paths with different cost. Why is that different for RAW? Wireless is a subset of that discussion? * Rick: Becomes an issue due to frequency of changes of path conditions. DetNet is mostly about wired. * Lou: No we started out with consideration of wireless. Supported RAW formation to put more attention on wireless. * Pascal: Picture is a generalization of problem that should be within scope of DetNet * Deborah on Jabber: It's not what DetNet covers it is what are the gaps for wireless. Focus on not boiling ocean. * Lou: Consistent with that, there are things consistent with DetNet that are specific to wireless.