**********************************************************************
                    Agenda & Minutes
          **********************************************************************
          
            20:00  Intro                Chairs
            [10mn]
            20:10  Use cases      Carlos Bernardos
            [20mn]
                                                  draft-bernardos-raw-use-cases-03
            20:30  LDACS           Nils Maeurer
            [20mn]
                                                  draft-maeurer-raw-ldacs-01
            20:50  5G                  Janos Farkas
            [20mn]
                                                  draft-farkas-5g-raw-00
            21:10                        Georgios Papadopoulos
                       Pareo                 draft-papadopoulos-raw-pareo-reqs-01
                       [15mn]
                       OAM                  draft-theoleyre-raw-oam-support-01
                       [10mn]
            21:35  Discussion    Chairs
            [25mn]
          
          
          Additional RAW drafts:
              draft-pthubert-raw-problem-statement-04
              draft-thubert-raw-technologies-04
          
          * Introduction
          (Chairs)
          
          
          Eve introduces the first non F2F meeting with history of past
          meetings. Eve presents herself, was cochair of mmusic.
          Eve is also part of the IOT directorate, interested in QOS
          
          Motivation for RAW: companion WG to DetNet. Going from probabilistic to
          Deterministic
          DetNet was missing use cases related to wireless. Also gaps in MANET.
          
          Eve lists typical DetNet properties, including bounded latency; RAW
          examinizes wireless technologies that can be scheduled.
          Eve introduces the charter, going through it. Short term 12 to 18 months,
          informational RFCs for the first run
          
          Use cases articulated around wireless; by Year End have an evaluation
          of existing IETF technologies and a gap analysis
          
          Rick discusses the document workflow at the IETF. RAW is to be short
          lived, we need to make sure we get the docs finished off promptly.
          
          RAW use case
          -------------------
          Carlos Bernardos presents v -03
          The named evolved with the tentative WG name; documents 7 use cases.
          Presentation focusing on industrial application and gaming taken as
          example due to limited time. Identifying the distinguished properties
          for RAW.
          
          Carlos introduces the plant connectivity with sensors, actuators and
          PLCs.
          Specifics:
              * heterogeneous technologies
              * multiple simultaneous links for reliability
              * variable link conditions, not always due to mobility
              * different traffic types, e.g., control loops with reliability and
              latency constraints, co-existing with monitoring.
          Requirements:
          * coexistence
          * multiple access technologies simultaneously
          
          Carlos introduces wireless gaming
          Specifics
          * shared real time information between players for real time gaming
          * also console gaming, low latency and jitter => a  focus for RAW
          * and cloud gaming
          Requirements
          * Carlos provides numbers
          * for RAW:  time sensitive, priority, time-aware shaping, see slides
          
          Summary
          * input from multiple people
          * inviting others like smart grid
          
          Toerless:
          * slide 8 seems not requirements but technology list. Need analysing
          methods that can be used, should be more.
          * in multicast there's a document for multicast in wireless where
          solutions are compared
          Rick:
          * plerase find that doc for the WG
          Carsten:
          * There's req that this need to work over paths with multiple wireless
          links. Does that mean it works over links that thenconstitute paths or
          is it working across multiple links spanning.
          Carlos:
          * some use cases have multiple links of multiple technologies. Can be
          multihop networks, or single hop with multiple physical links.
          Carsten:
              * the latter is answering my question: Yes, work across multiple
              links
          Bob Hinden:
              * what's the need for gaming? Seems to be going on already.
          Carlos Bernardos:
          * I did not propose that use case, need exists, offline to ML
          Rick Taylor:
              * not just about wireless gaming. This is afrom left field use case,
              a lot of others exist too
          Eve Schooler:
              * multiple streams from multiple cameras, precision stitching and
              better visulalization
          Kuhnn:
              * muted
          
          Eve Schooler introduces LDCAS as the next presentation
          Rick Taylor:
              There will be no humming for adoption in this sessioN
          Nils Mäurer present LDACS
          * second version of the draft
          * comes from aeronautics communication, foreseen trabsition to IPv6
          and several links, one of them LDACS (and AeroMACs for airports
          communication)
          * does not matter which link it takes, what's important is in-time
          delivery
          * draft 01 introduces the technology and IPv6 over it. Going through
          the TOC.
          * no standard at ICAO, opportunity to define the rules for an IPv6 link
          that covers multiple datalinks
          * details the protocol stack and services, see slide 7
          * OFDMA hardened for aeronautical interference, FDD 2*500KHz, superframes
          * ground station GS controller handles 500 planes
          * How do we transport IPv6 safely to the plane?
          * < 2Mbps over <400Km in regulated 1GHz spectrum
          * RAW: multihop multi link system, LDACS is an open standard in
          development at ICAO
          Stuart Card:
          * how this related to ICAO trust framework (GRAIN), will post slide from
          X Da Silva on that
          Thomas Gräupl :
              * this is an FAA project not what we are doing at ICAO; GRAIN uses
              commercial off the shelf. The use of COTS for air traffic control
              is debated, no standard at ICAO can do that legally as of now. ICAO
              dedicates links. Rest is far in the future
          
          Janos Farkas on 5G:
              * provide some details on 5G, indicates it is a reliable and available
              tech, good match for RAW;
          Torsten Dudda:
              * outline, industrial use cases a focus
              * 5G include URLLC, all about providing bounded low latency, include
              time synchronization
              * 5G NR is scheduled by gNB, QoS framework, include packet error rate
              * low latency features, see slides
          Janos Farkas
          * 5G has options for multi connectivity. e.g; DUal UEs, see slides
          * TSN integration with 5G added in release 16
          * virtual TSN bridges incorporate the ethernet PDU sessions, enables
          end-to-end deterministic ethernet
          * done to cover Carlos' requirements earlier
          * TSN translator the key component
          * DetNet had TSN in mind as subnet technology. Rechartering DetNet to
          enable others.
          * How do we combine 5G for DetNet. Various combonations possible, see
          slides
          * Summary, see slides
          Rick Taylor:
              * are the drafts presented in scope of the charter? I believe 5G is
              interesting, does it apply to RAW? RAW looks at heterogeneous.
              * Are the authors calling for WG adoption?
          Tom Kapela:
          How to avoid deadlocks? Solves similar problems push flow control to
          the edges, convergence at odds with congension mgmt activities. How does
          that apply here?
          
          Janos:
              PRE offers 1+1 protection with duplicate copies with seq nb on
              different path
          
          802.1CB replication and elimination, disjoint paths, sequence numbers. No
          failover time. Job of central controller in SDN approach.
          Scheduling and the central controller avoids congestion loss
          Tom: What about single UE contacted by multiple incoming sources -
          how do we deal with that, potential deadlock.
          Janos: Agree, need to deal with that.
          Abdussalam Baryun:
          * I'm interested in use cases to know challenges, so what are the main
          challenges for this technology use case.
          Janos Farkas:
          * high availability and reliability critical for industrial. Downtime
          is expensive.
          * typical closed control loops with periodic CBR, time requirements must
          be met. Latency also a factor.
          
          Defering next questions in interest of time
          
          Georgios Papadopoulos presents PAREO requirements
          * slides 6-12 detail the PAREO operation over  a scheduled multihop mesh
          * Alternative parent selection not written in the draft yet, to be
          discussed in ML whether we add it or not
          
          Lou Berger:
              * What about this is specific to wireless (vs. any DetNet).
          Georgios Papadopoulos:
              * Overhearing, constructive interference
          Lou Berger:
              * interaction between subnet and IP and how this is exposed
              *  such as one subnet path taking away resources from another -
              how is this exposed to IP layer.
          Greg Mirsky:
              Where RAW reliability is built
          Georgios Papadopoulos:
          * can do tricks at MAC layer for single or multiple acks in case of
          overhearing. Need to avoid ack collision, to be discussed at layer 2
          Rick Taylor:
              * Discussing different things: probability of delivery vs guarantee
              of delivery.
              * I think this is interesting work not in the immediate charter but
              could be adopted and worked on, whether it ends up here or not is
              secondary
          
          Georgios Papadopoulos presents OAM:
          Could be topic for RAW or DetNet, TBD.
          * specific challenges, how much resource to allocate, energy efficiency
          Rick Taylor:
              * Req for adoption - address on the ML
              * for Nils, unclear if you are requesting adoption, will send email
          Nils Mäurer
              * We are looking for reviews and are aiming for working group adoption
              at IETF 108 :)
          Toerless Eckert:
              * Interested in PREOF, most interesting part of DetNet.
              * scared if tried to limit to known building blocks for PREOF,
              there's a lot of research out there
          Florin Baboescu on 5G:
          Lou Berger:
          * Fundamental question for the group is what is the model of integration
          for the DetNet layer and wireless subnet layer? Is it integrated or
          layered?
          * WRTo Tom's question earlier re flow control - there are two control
          loops, a longer control loop that requires subnet information to be
          exposed to the control(ler) -- for it to pick the right (IP) paths and
          a shorter control loop that allows the IP sub-net entry point's queuing
          to adjust to congestion at the wireless sub-net level.  While we're not
          at solutions yet DLEP from the MANET WG can be used to support both
          Stewart Bryant:
          Reconciling guaranteed delivery vs guaranteed latency - can't solve for
          both. Can just increase probabiity of losing a packet by some amount.
          Would have to wait an infinite amount of time for guarantee.
          Pascal Thubert:
          Yes this is correct, working for bounded latency, best delivery
          ration. Even wired has limited number of nines, wireless will have
          fewer. Looking at all the ways to increase the number of nines for
          wireless.
          Stewart:
          But then how do you set a number around that? Puzzled since worked on
          PREOF solution, still trying to define this e.g. for safety of life
          system.
          Toerless:
          In DetNet zero percent loss, or 100% bounded latency - depends on which
          use case for what the requirements are for this. Less strict requirements
          can be acceptable given the use case. So incremental improvement options
          would help even if not purely deterministic a la DetNet.
          
          Stewart:
          Benchmark is to just multiply the bandwidth and see if that is good
          enough.
          Janos:
              Are you considering this as an issue just with wireless or with
              wired also?
          Eric:
              Please take to the list.
          Eve:
          So there are good questions here about mission and gaps, specifying QoS,
          determinism or broader, reconciling competing requirements. Good for
          future discussions.
          Any comments from chat window - make sure they were captured in notes.
          Maybe there were 73 participants - not all in blue sheet? Will make
          request to ML to verify.
          Meeting adjourned.