Re: [Actn] ACTN charter v1.0

[Leeyoung <[e-mail]>]

Hi Nico,

Comment 1 is acceptable to me as operators’ use-cases made it clear this point.

On Comment 2, I think it is a style issue and I believe the current text style is normative of IETF charter statement.

Thanks,
Young

From: Nico Wauters [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2014 9:16 AM
To: Dhruv Dhody; Leeyoung; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [Actn] ACTN charter v1.0

Lee,

I reviewed the charter and find it good.

I have 2 comments

Comment 1:
In 5th paragraph
YOUNG>>“It will identify key building components and the corresponding interfaces among these components. “
WAUTERS>>“It will identify key building components and the corresponding interfaces among these components. Key components can be future building block or legacy components existing today“

Comment 2:
I don’t have a lot of experience with writing charters, but instead of “… will work on …” isn’t the objective to come to conclusions or aim clear recommendations ?
Note that my experience with IETF is not large enough to know whether what I state here makes sense.

YOUNG>>  “High-level architecture that describes the basic building blocks to enable transport network virtualization to support use cases.
WAUTERS>> “Propose a high-level architecture ……


YOUNG>>  “Evaluation of Information model/data model to support the use cases.
WAUTERS>>  “Evaluate and agree on Information model/data model to support the use cases.

YOUNG>>  “Requirements to support APIs/protocols, encoding languages, and data models
WAUTERS>>  “Collect requirements to support APIs/protocols, encoding languages, and data models


YOUNG>>Gap analysis of existing IETF and other protocols, encoding languages and data models to fulfill the requirements.
WAUTERS>>Perform gap analysis of existing IETF and other protocols, encoding languages and data models to fulfill the requirements.

YOUNG>> “Protocol extensions (if necessary after re-chartering).
WAUTERS>> “Propose protocol extensions (if necessary after re-chartering).

Regards
Nico


From: Dhruv Dhody [mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>]
Sent: vrijdag 12 september 2014 4:33
To: Leeyoung; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Actn] ACTN charter v1.0

Hi Young,

Please see inline..

From: Dhruv Dhody
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 10:48 PM
To: Leeyoung; Leeyoung; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: ACTN charter v1.0

Hi Young,

Please find some comments on the proposed charter.

* Do we need some text in charter also to specify what we consider as Transport networks?

YOUNG>> That may clarify the scope. Do you have any suggestion?  One definition from the Problem Statement draft (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-leeking-actn-problem-statement/) is as follows. Would this be good enough or need more work?

Transport networks are defined as network infrastructure that
   provides connectivity and bandwidth for customer services. They
   are characterized by their ability to support server layer
   provisioning and traffic engineering for client layer services,
   such that resource guarantees may be provided to their customers.
   Transport networks in this document refer to a set of different
   type of connection-oriented networks, which include Connection-
   Oriented Circuit Switched (CO-CS) networks and Connection-
   Oriented Packet Switched (CO-PS) networks. This implies that at
   least the following transport networks are in scope of the
   discussion of this draft: Layer 1 (L1) optical networks (e.g.,
   Optical Transport Networks (OTN) and Wavelength Switched Optical
   Networks (WSON)), MPLS-TP, MPLS-TE, as well as other emerging
   network technologies with connection-oriented behavior.


[Dhruv]: Yes that would be good with Eve suggestion and removing ‘in the document’/’of this draft’.


* “Transport networks have a variety of mechanisms to:
-               Facilitate separation of data plane and control plane,
-               Allow for distributed or centralized signaling  for path setup and protection, and
-               Provide traffic engineering mechanism via centralized path computation.”

Term ‘centralized signaling’ is confusing to me, do you mean, the use of NMS?

YOUNG>> Yes. We can reword the second point: “Allow for distributed signaling or an NMS-based centralized signaling for set up….”

[Dhruv]: That works!

* “The architecture work will lead to requirements for information models and protocol extensions between the virtual network controller and the physical network domain controllers and between the virtual network controller and multi-tenant customer controllers.”

It would be nice to add “multi-domain coordinator” with “virtual network controller” to explicitly link them together. Also multi-tenant customer controllers doesn’t convey the intention to have different customer controllers for each tenant, how about…

“The architecture work will lead to requirements for information models and protocol extensions between the virtual network controller (embedded in a multi-domain coordinator) and the physical network domain controllers and between the virtual network controller and multiple tenant customer controllers.”

YOUNG>> This sounds good to me. Thanks.

* “The working group will determine if new protocol extensions are necessary. If the working group determines they are necessary, then it will develop the new protocols within the working group where necessary, while interacting with other working groups to enhance existing protocols where possible.”

Suggest to re-word this as it’s not clear – is it about extension to existing protocols or new protocol and where that work might be taken up. Also Protocol extensions is mentioned as a work item after re-chartering.

YOUNG>> New protocol extensions mean a brand new protocol (say, “ACTN” protocol per se) that cannot be extended from existing protocols. But there may be some areas where we need to expand from existing protocols. In such case, we need to interact with the corresponding WGs. Perhaps an analogy would be that CCAMP WG is chartered to work on OPSF-TE for specific technologies while OSPF WG needs to be informed of the protocol changes.

[Dhruv]: How about we reword this to – “The working group will determine if new protocol or extensions to existing protocols are necessary. If the working group determines they are necessary, then it will develop new protocols within the working group, on the other hand any extensions to existing protocols would be done  with interactions with other working groups where possible.”

* You may want to do charter text formatting in RFC text format taking care of word-wraps and indentation
YOUNG>> Not sure what you meant here. Please clarify it for me.
[Dhruv]: Refer attachment, this format would help when we upload it to the data tracker and charter diff tool can help track it better.
This version has all the changes suggested by me and Eve.
Regards,
Dhruv
Hope you find them useful in making the charter text crisp.

YOUNG>> Definitely. Thanks a lot for your review and great comments.

Dhruv


From: ACTN [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Leeyoung
Sent: 10 September 2014 04:53
To: Leeyoung; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: [Actn] ACTN charter v1.0

Sorry, I forgot the Subject of this email. Here’s a retransmission with the subject.

From: Leeyoung
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 3:47 PM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject:

Hi,

I hope your summer break was a good one.

We’d like to give you some updates and plans on the ACTN work. We are going to request a formal BoF in Honolulu IETF meeting. In doing so, we need a charter draft as part of the due diligence. Here’s an initial charter draft developed by the small set of proponents of the work based on the discussions and use-cases and other published documents.  We hope this captures a workable ACTN scope.  This version 1.0 draft charter is also posted in the wiki: https://sites.google.com/site/actnbof/home/charter-propor

Your review and comment will be greatly appreciated to come up with a good charter developed by the community of interest.

Best regards,
Young (on behalf of the proponents)

-------------------------------draft charter 1.0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Transport networks have a variety of mechanisms to:

-       Facilitate separation of data plane and control plane,

-       Allow for distributed or centralized signaling  for path setup and protection, and

-       Provide traffic engineering mechanism via centralized path computation.

These represent key technologies for enabling flexible and dynamic networking, and efficient control and recovery of resources. Although these technologies provide significant benefits within a single domain control boundary, they do not meet the growing need for transport network virtualization in multi-domain transport networks. More and more network operators are building and operating on multi-domain transport networks. These domains (collections of links and nodes) may be each of a different technology, administrative zones, or vendor-specific islands. Establishment of end-to-end connections spanning multiple domains is a perpetual problem for operators because of both operational concerns (control plane and management plane) and interoperability issues (control plane and data plane).  Due to these issues, new services that require connections that traverse multiple domains need significant planning and often manual operations to interface different vendor equipment and technology.

The aim of Abstraction and Control of Transport Networks (ACTN) is to facilitate a centralized virtual network operation: the creation of a virtualized environment allowing operators to view and control multi-subnet, multi-technology, multi-vendor domain networks. Abstraction of transport networks also allows operators to consolidate their network services into multi-tenant virtual transport networks. This will enable rapid service deployment of new dynamic and elastic services, and will improve overall network operations and scaling of existing services. Discussion with operators has also highlighted a need for virtual network operation based on the abstraction of underlying technology and vendor domains.

Multi-domain network coordination function in ACTN is built on a control hierarchy where a multi-domain coordinator interacts with each domain controller (e.g., EMS/NMS, GMPLS/PCE control plane, SDN controller) for abstracting network resource information to provide virtual network control functions. This virtual network control functions are embedded in a multi-domain network coordinator to support various services/clients/applications to create and manage their own virtual networks that share the common transport network resources.


The ACTN working group will work to develop a high-level architecture for transport network abstraction and control that facilitates seamless vertical service coordination across multi-tenant customers (primarily internal service organizations with respect to a network operator), the virtual network control and the physical network domain controls as well as a horizontal E2E service coordination across multi-domain networks. It will identify key building components and the corresponding interfaces among these components.  The architecture work will lead to requirements for information models and protocol extensions between the virtual network controller and the physical network domain controllers and between the virtual network controller and multi-tenant customer controllers. Well-defined use cases from operators perspective with clearly stated need for transport network virtualization are critical in scoping the work and thus to achieve the deliverables of the working group.

The working group will work on the following items:

-       High-level architecture that describes the basic building blocks to enable transport network virtualization to support use cases.

-       Operator-driven use cases to address the following initial items:

o    Virtual network control and operation for core transport Packet Optical Integration (POI). (e.g., MPLS-TP, OTN/WSON)

o    Virtual network control and operation for mobile backhaul multi-technology transport (e.g., MPLS-TP and MPLS/OTN)

o    Data Center Operator’s interconnection with optical transport network infrastructure providers to support dynamic virtual circuit services.

o    Multi-tenant support to allow virtual network information query, virtual network negotiation, creation/deletion and modification.

o    Synchronization of network resources view across physical domain controls and virtual network control.

o    Dynamic service control and monitoring across all entities.

Initial work within the working group will be limited to a single operator administrative domain with an exception for the Data Center operation use case.

-       Evaluation of Information model/data model to support the use cases.

-       Requirements to support APIs/protocols, encoding languages, and data models

-       Gap analysis of existing IETF and other protocols, encoding languages and data models to fulfill the requirements.

-       Protocol extensions (if necessary after re-chartering).

The working group will determine if new protocol extensions are necessary. If the working group determines they are necessary, then it will develop the new protocols within the working group where necessary, while interacting with other working groups to enhance existing protocols where possible.