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

["[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>]

Hi, 

Currently there is a certain difference in the scope and analysis granularity between these two documents, which makes the gap to merge them directly, or more content should be filled if merge the two documents based on the current version to ensure the integrity and harmony of the document. 

At this stage, we are hard to to directly specify how the authors should proceed, some prior discussions and viewpoints among the authors (and the working group members) will be good to promote the work.

Regards,
Peng


[e-mail]
 
From: Adrian Farrel
Date: 2026-06-06 19:47
To: 'Linda Dunbar'; 'Huijuan'; [e-mail]
CC: cats-chairs
Subject: [Cats] Re: What's next for CATS? Vienna and beyond
Hi Linda,
 
If there is consensus on a single approach, then I can see a single document being the best way to go.
 
If there are different deployment environments or use cases that merit distinct protocol applications, then I can see a single document covering that with different sections for the different cases. But, equally, this could be achieved in different documents.
 
If the protocol applications are different but for the same environments and use cases then I would stick with separate documents because that will be a much easier way to help people make choices.
 
So, what to do?
I’d suggest that the authors of the two documents have a chat about this. Do they feel that merging is appropriate and possible? Should they remain complementary?
 
Thanks,
Adrian
 
From: Linda Dunbar <[e-mail]> 
Sent: 01 June 2026 23:59
To: Huijuan <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [Cats] Re: What's next for CATS? Vienna and beyond
 
Hi CATS WG and Chairs: 
 
I have a question regarding the relationship between draft-yxl-cats-protocols-applicability-00 and https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dunbar-cats-5g-metadata-applicability/ , which was also presented at IETF 125.
 
Both drafts discuss applicability of existing protocols to support CATS. The draft-dunbar document focuses on the applicability of the BGP Edge Metadata Path Attribute and its mapping to CATS-related metrics, while draft-yxl appears to take a broader protocol applicability perspective.
 
What would the WG consider the appropriate path for these related efforts? Should they remain as complementary documents with cross-references, should some material be incorporated into this applicability draft, or is there another approach the WG would prefer?
 
We would appreciate feedback from the chairs and the WG.
 
Best regards,
Linda
 
From: Huijuan <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2026 1:35 AM
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: [Cats] Re: What's next for CATS? Vienna and beyond
 
Hi chairs, WGs,
We appreciate your efforts in leading the working group. We will discuss and improve the draft accordingly. Thank you, Chairs.
 
1. Regarding draft-yxl-cats-protocols-applicability-00
This draft was presented last time. It covers protocol applicability for the CATS system and describes its implementation based on existing IETF protocols.As this is Draft 00, relevant protocols and implementation approaches are open for discussion. We welcome your inputs and updates. We will continue polishing the document to promote the application of CATS protocols.
 
2. Regarding draft-yl-cats-data-model-05
Its framework has been settled after group discussions. Please contact us anytime if you have further suggestions.
We look forward to your valuable comments to push forward the standardization process. Thank you. 
 
Thanks,
Huijuan  
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2026 7:01 PM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: 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).

[Cheng]Great! Thank you for your work! I believe that we should encourage the CATS participants to move the protocol definitions work in other WGs. We might need more attention of CATS from other WGs 


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.
 
[Cheng]Will do.

Thanks,
Peng and Adrian

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

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

Hi Chairs,

Thank you for your work to lead the WG forward. Kehan has replied to you regarding the metric document.
I can share some idea of the other parts. Please see below.

Thanks,
Cheng


-----Original Message-----
From: Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2026 7:01 PM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: 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).

[Cheng]Great! Thank you for your work! I believe that we should encourage the CATS participants to move the protocol definitions work in other WGs. We might need more attention of CATS from other WGs 


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.
 
[Cheng]Will do.

Thanks,
Peng and Adrian

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