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

[Kehan Yao <[e-mail]>]

Hi Adrian,

Thank you very much for helping us authors move this draft forward. Please
see my replies below.

Best regards,
Kehan
------
> 1.      Have all outstanding issues been addressed? The authors should be
> able to answer this.
[KY] In the last two revisions, we have addressed the majority of the
issues. There are still a few minor ones left, for example:
* Score direction – it is still opposite to the IGP metric usage; we need
to discuss this further.
* Regarding metric encoding – we would like to compare using binary
encoding or text encoding? Do you think we should add some discussion on
this in the document?
* You commented on Section 6 before that you would like to see the
description of where metric aggregation/normalization is placed should
appear earlier and more centrally in the document.

I am wondering whether the three points above could be combined into a new
Operational Considerations section?

> 2.      The Security Considerations section is fairly light. I have
> commissioned an "early" SecDir review to help with this.
[KY] Thank you for inviting the SEC directorate to perform an early review
of the draft. Yes, the current Security Considerations section is rather
brief. We will update it further after receiving the early SecDir review
comments.

> 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.
[KY] As with point 1, we will add an Operational Considerations section in
the next revision, incorporating the feedback from the OpsDir early review.

> 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?!
[KY] We would very much appreciate more feedback on the mailing list.

> 5.      There are some new I-Ds around metrics, please also figure out any
> points that could help improve the working group documents.
[KY] Thanks for the advice. We have read some of them and provided some
feedback previously. We will engage further with those authors. Thanks to
the authors of those drafts for their insights.

Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]> 于2026年5月27日周三 19:01写道：

> 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
> 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
> 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.
>
> 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
>
> --
> Cats mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>