[Cats] Re: What's next for CATS? Vienna and beyond

[Jing Wang <[e-mail]>]

Hi Chairs,

Thanks a lot for leading the WG and moving our work ahead.

I’d like to share a few minor comments. Please see below.

Best regards,
Jing

From: Adrian Farrel
Date: 2026-05-27 19:00
To: [e-mail]
CC: cats-chairs
Subject: [Cats] What's next for CATS? Vienna and beyond
Hello CATS,
As we start preparations for meeting in Vienna, the chairs have been
considering what is next for the working group.
= Metrics = 
 
We only have one milestone left: "submit metrics to the IESG". That's going
OK, with two new revisions this month - thanks to the authors.
-07 at the start of the month was followed by an email to the list saying
that it was a "first round of revision, trying to address your comments".
-08 a week later contained some more changes of substance, but there wasn't
email to the list.
I have four remaining concerns:
1. Have all outstanding issues been addressed? The authors should be
able to answer this.
2. The Security Considerations section is fairly light. I have
commissioned an "early" SecDir review to help with this.
3. There is no Operational Considerations section (although there are
operational considerations within the document. I have commissioned an
"early" OpsDir review to help with this.
4. There has not been a lot of discussion of the draft on the list? Has
anyone read it in the last 12 months? If not, why not?!
5. There are some new I-Ds around metrics, please also figure out any
points that could help improve the working group documents.
= What is next for the working group? =
Our charter describes some broad areas of work
. Groundwork (problem statement, use cases, requirements). The chairs
think the core documents are complete, but there may be some further
documents that would be useful (see below)
. Cats framework and architecture. The chairs think this is complete
. Applicability of tools and mechanisms. This seems to be an issue
that a lot of people want to talk about. The chairs have tried to keep a
separation between new protocol definitions (don't belong in CATS) and
applicability and gap analysis (do belong in CATS - see below).
There are some additional groundwork I-Ds on security, OAM, data models.
a. draft-wang-cats-security-considerations
b. draft-fu-cats-oam-fw
c. draft-yl-cats-data-model

[Jing] Do we need to specify a YANG model for the northbound interface here?

The chairs believe these are good candidates for adoption by the working
group, but we have seen very little discussion of them on the list. So we
would ask:
. The authors to reintroduce there work, and explain what the status
is and where they need help
. The working group to actively review the drafts and make concrete
suggestions for changes.
If the mailing list shows good progress, we could move straight towards
adoption. Otherwise we will ask the authors to present in Vienna with the
intention of understanding from the room whether there is any interest in
the work.
The chairs also think that two protocol applicability documents are maturing
well.
d. draft-yxl-cats-protocols-applicability
e. draft-dunbar-cats-5g-metadata-applicability

[Jing] Do we need to include an applicability description for the YANG model here?

Again, the level of discussion on the list has not been good, so we would
also ask:
. The authors to reintroduce there work, and explain what the status
is and where they need help
. The working group to actively review the drafts and make concrete
suggestions for changes.
People also seem to be interested in discussing "stretch use cases", but the
chairs think that we need to see CATS working before we get too excited
about specialist applicability.

[Jing] CATS supports potential extended use cases, and we would appreciate your attention to this area.

As usual, the priorities for the agenda in Vienna will be:
. Working group drafts
. Documents the chairs consider in scope and close to ready for
adoption
. I-Ds that have been discussed on the list.
We'd like to remind you that sending a three-line email to the list does not
equate to "discussion," so please try to engage the working group, and
please review each other's drafts.
Thanks,
Peng and Adrian