Re: [CCAMP] [Teas] Augmenting te-topo wasRe: rough notes from meeting

[Xufeng Liu <[e-mail]>]

I'd agree with what Lou said. Either augmenting
/networks/network/network-types/te-topology or augmenting
/networks/network/network-types can be valid. Which way to pick depends on
the relationship between models and the use cases.

If a WSON topology instance can be created independent of the te-topology,
and can be used with or without TE parameters, the WSON topology model
should augment /networks/network/network-types.

If a WSON topology instance is always tied with the te-topology, and used
always with the TE capabilities, the relationship is an inheritance
relation.  The WSON topology model should augment
/networks/network/network-types/te-topology.

Based on the document and Italo's explanation, it is reasonable to use the
latter approach.

Thanks,
- Xufeng

On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 9:27 AM Lou Berger <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> On 9/29/2020 7:51 AM, tom petch wrote:
> > From: CCAMP <[e-mail]> on behalf of Italo Busi <
> [e-mail]>
> > Sent: 28 September 2020 16:30
> >
> > Tom, Lou,
> >
> > The augmentation statements in WSON, as well in other
> technology-specific models in CCAMP, we are following the guidelines in
> section 6 and Appendix C of RFC8795 and augmenting the te-topology
> network-type.
> >
> > The main reason is that these modules augments structures defined in
> te-topology.
> >
> > <tp>
> > No, I do not see it.  I agree that WSON augments te-topology but do not
> see RFC8345 (or RFC8795) as then suggesting that the augmentation of the
> network type should reflect the YANG augmentation of the data nodes.  As I
> said before, the only example I see in RFC8345 is of OSPF augmenting Layer
> 3, which figures.  The end of s.4.3 talks of a hierarchy of network types
> and suggests that a more specific network type could augment a more general
> network type (which fits with Layer 3 and OSPF). We could have had a layer
> one which got augmented but we have not.  I posted to the I2RS list in the
> hope that one of the authors of RFC8345 could expand on their thinking but
> no.
> >
> > A minor consequence of augmenting the nework type te-topology is the
> longer path statements and I note that RFC8345 does raise the length of
> path statements as an issue but my greater concern is that hard coding this
> hierarchy into the YANG will stop us doing something we want to do at a
> later date but I have no concrete example in mind.
> >
> > Tom Petch.
>
> Tom,
>
> Given the explanations sent to you on i2rs/teas/ccamp - that what has
> been done is consistent with RFC8795 and has WG support, and that you
> don't have concrete issue in mind justifying a change, can we consider
> this issue closed once the description change is made?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Lou
>
>
> > If the issue is caused by the description, I am ok to update the
> description following Lou’s suggestion:
> >
> > OLD
> >     "Introduce new network type for WSON topology.";
> > NEW
> >     "Introduce new te-topology network type for WSON topology.";
> >
> > Italo
> >
> > From: Lou Berger [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: sabato 26 settembre 2020 15:47
> > To: tom petch <[e-mail]>om>; TEAS WG <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: [e-mail]; TEAS WG Chairs <[e-mail]>
> > Subject: Re: [CCAMP] [Teas] Augmenting te-topo wasRe: rough notes from
> meeting
> >
> >
> > Hi Tom,
> >
> >      sorry about the delayed response.  I think this a fair question for
> the WG as a whole (not me alone).
> >
> > My view as a WG participant is in-line below.
> > On 9/22/2020 7:17 AM, tom petch wrote:
> >
> > Lou
> >
> > (borrowing a useful email to raise a fresh topic)
> >
> >
> >
> > When te-topo is augmented with a new technology, there is a need to
> specify the new type.  Should this be an augment to
> >
> > networks/network/network-types/te-topology
> >
> > or an augment to
> >
> > networks/network/network-types
> >
> > ie do you see the new technology sitting alongside te-topology or
> subordinate to it?
> >
> > IMO it depends on the specifics of the augmentation.  If it is
> TE-specific and relying on general TE information, then subordinate makes
> sense to me.
> >
> > wson-yang is in IETF last call and has just been revised and the
> presence container wson-topology is subordinate to te-topology while the
> description says augment network types.  What matters I think is that the
> approach is consistent.
> >
> > I previously looks at this draft and it's augmentations looked correct
> to me.  I focused more on the tree representation rather than the actual
> model so missed this in the description.  Even so, I'm not sure I would
> have noticed as  it reads:
> >
> >
> >
> >       augment "/nw:networks/nw:network/nw:network-types"
> >
> >             + "/tet:te-topology" {
> >
> >         description
> >
> >           "Augment network types to define WSON topology type.";
> >
> >
> >
> > and it's the te-topology network type (container) that is being
> augmented.  It sounds like you'd like to see the description changed from
> "network types " to "te-topology network type".  I think this is a fine,
> and very minor, clarification.
> >
> > Lou
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >   I looked at RFC8795 but could not see any guidance there.
> >
> >
> >
> > Tom Petch
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Teas <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]> on
> behalf of Lou Berger <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>
> >
> > Sent: 31 July 2020 14:04
> >
> > To: TEAS WG
> >
> > Cc: TEAS WG Chairs
> >
> > Subject: [Teas] rough notes from meeting
> >
> >
> >
> > All,
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you all for participating today! Please visit
> >
> > https://codimd.ietf.org/notes-ietf-108-teas?both and verify that your
> >
> > comments/discussions were appropriately captured.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you!
> >
> >
> >
> > Lou (and Pavan and Matt)
> >
> >
> >
> > ## TEAS Notes For IETF 108
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ## Session Information
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >                   TEAS Agenda For IETF 108
> >
> >                   Version: Jul 26, 2020
> >
> >
> >
> >                   Session 1: Friday, July 31, 2020 (UTC)
> >
> >                   11:00-12:40 Friday Session I (UTC)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > | |  |
> >
> > | -------- | -------- |
> >
> > |  Location:    |
> >
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/108/floor-plan?room=room-6 |
> >
> > | Materials:    | https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/108/session/teas
> |
> >
> > | Meetecho:    | http://www.meetecho.com/ietf108/teas |
> >
> > | Audio stream:    | http://mp3.conf.meetecho.com/ietf/ietf1086.m3u |
> >
> > | Jabber:    | http://jabber.ietf.org/logs/teas |
> >
> > | WG  ICS:    |
> >
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/upcoming.ics?filters=teas |
> >
> > | Session ICS:     |
> >
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/108/session/28181.ics|
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ## Presentation       Start Time     Duration     Information
> >
> >
> >
> > ## 1    11:00    5    Title:    Administrivia & WG Status
> >
> >   > Draft:
> >
> >   > Presenter:    Chairs
> >
> >
> >
> > ## 2    11:05    5    Title:    WG Draft updates
> >
> >   > Draft:    Many
> >
> >   > Presenter:    Chairs
> >
> >
> >
> > Adrian Farrel: draft-king-teas-applicability-actn-slicing has been
> respoon
> >
> > Jie Dong: The plan is to move it to other documents (currently
> individual)
> >
> > Eric Gray: The scope of the new documents are more narrow than the
> >
> > original so removal is problematic
> >
> > Vishnu Beeram: Please discuss the change on the list
> >
> > Lou Berger: Please discuss with WG before (re)moving text from a WG
> >
> > document
> >
> >
> >
> > ## 3    11:10    10    Title:    Yang model for requesting Path
> Computation
> >
> >   > Draft:
> >
> >   > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-yang-path-computation-10
> >
> >   > Presenter:    Sergio Belotti
> >
> >
> >
> > Lou Berger: Suggest discussing/reporting any tool issues with the tool
> >
> > author -- (from jabber: report issue via
> https://github.com/mbj4668/pyang)
> >
> > Rob Wilton (from Jabber):
> >
> >     On the path computation presentation, and having looked at RFC 7950,
> >
> > for issue #76 (1) and (2) I think that the pyang 2.1 behaviour is
> >
> > correct.  I.e. don't include "input" and for (2), I think that this
> >
> > isn't allowed. The key text being section 6.4.1 or RFC 7950
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ## 4    11:20    10    Title:    Yang model update
> >
> >   > Draft:
> >
> >   >
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-te-service-mapping-yang-04
> >
> >   >
> >
> >
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-actn-pm-telemetry-autonomics-03
> >
> >   > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang-09
> >
> >   > Presenter:    Dhruv Dhody
> >
> >
> >
> > Tarek Saad: Is the path computed by "template" in TE-Service mapping,
> >
> > stateful in nature?
> >
> > Dhruv Dhody: This is just the constraints and optimization criteria and
> >
> > nothing to do with the statefulness of path.
> >
> > Daniele Ceccarelli: This comes from the OSS layer, which doesn't care
> >
> > about how it is provided via te tunnels, just that the service
> >
> > characteristics are met
> >
> >
> >
> > ## 5    11:30    10    Title:    DT Intro, IETF Definition of Transport
> >
> > Slice
> >
> >   > Draft:
> >
> >   >
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nsdt-teas-transport-slice-definition-03
> >
> >   > Presenter:    Jari Arkko + Reza Rokui
> >
> > Actual Start Time: 11:42
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ## 6    11:40    10    Title:    Framework for Transport Network Slices
> >
> >   > Draft:
> >
> >   > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nsdt-teas-ns-framework-04
> >
> >       > Presenter:Eric Gray
> >
> >   >
> >
> > Actual Start Time: 11:53
> >
> >
> >
> > Daniele Ceccarelli: in ACTN we have defined the interface between MDSC
> >
> > and CNC as a boundary between a customer and the operator. We are now
> >
> > lacking of a reference point between the MDSC and another entity within
> >
> > the operator. We have identified a similar issue in the context of POI.
> >
> > On the MDSC role, I agree with the interpretation.
> >
> >
> >
> > Lou Berger: Any objections to adoption?
> >
> >       <none></none>
> >
> >       Please expect an adoption call on list.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ## 7    11:50    10    Title:    Transport Network Slice YANG Data Model
> >
> >   > Draft:
> >
> >
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-liu-teas-transport-network-slice-yang-01
> >
> >   > Presenter:    Xufeng Liu
> >
> > Actual Start time: 12:10
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ## 8    12:00    10    Title:     A Yang Data Model for Transport Slice
> NBI
> >
> >   > Draft:
> >
> >   > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wd-teas-transport-slice-yang-02
> >
> >   > Presenter:    Bo Wu
> >
> > Actual Start Time: 12:18
> >
> >
> >
> > (From Jabber) Vishnu Beeram: Note that the previous presentation ties
> >
> > the modeling of a transport network slice to existing network topology
> >
> > models while the current presentation focuses on the service view of a
> >
> > slice. Please chime in with your views on these 2 approaches (either
> >
> > here or on the list).. There seems to be a case being made (by both sets
> >
> > of authors) to make room for both -- please discuss if you have any
> >
> > objections...
> >
> > Lou Berger: Please take comments/discussion to list
> >
> >
> >
> > ## 9    12:10    10    Title:    Network Slicing with Flexible Traffic
> >
> > Engineering
> >
> >   > Draft:
> >
> >
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zzhang-teas-network-slicing-with-flex-te-00
> >
> >   > Presenter:    Jeffrey Zhang
> >
> > Actual Start Time: 12:26
> >
> >
> >
> > Please take comments/discussion to list
> >
> >
> >
> > ## 10    12:20    10    Title:    Packet Network Slicing using Segment
> >
> > Routing
> >
> >   > Draft:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-peng-teas-network-slicing-03
> >
> >   > Presenter:    Ran Chen
> >
> > Actual Start Time: 12:31
> >
> >
> >
> > Please take comments/discussion to list
> >
> >
> >
> > ## 11    12:30    10    Title:    A YANG Data Model for MPLS-TE Topology
> >
> >   > Draft:
> >
> >
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-busizheng-teas-yang-te-mpls-topology-00
> >
> >   > Presenter:    Italo Busi
> >
> >   > Actual Start Time: 12:36
> >
> >
> >
> > Please take comments/discussion to list
> >
> >
> >
> > ## Adjourn    12:40
> >
> >   >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > Teas mailing list
> >
> > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> >
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > Teas mailing list
> >
> > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> >
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>