Re: [CCAMP] [Teas] Augmenting te-topo wasRe: rough notes from meeting
Italo Busi <Italo.Busi@huawei.com> Mon, 28 September 2020 15:30 UTC
Return-Path: <Italo.Busi@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8EFF3A1262; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 08:30:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KrfGAGP9BH_E; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 08:30:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE4A83A1261; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 08:30:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml713-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id A0E7BBC4A4658B075D22; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 16:30:42 +0100 (IST)
Received: from fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.33) by lhreml713-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.64) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 16:30:42 +0100
Received: from fraeml715-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.34) by fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 17:30:42 +0200
Received: from fraeml715-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.206.15.34]) by fraeml715-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.206.15.34]) with mapi id 15.01.1913.007; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 17:30:41 +0200
From: Italo Busi <Italo.Busi@huawei.com>
To: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, tom petch <ietfa@btconnect.com>, TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>
CC: "ccamp@ietf.org" <CCAMP@ietf.org>, TEAS WG Chairs <teas-chairs@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] [Teas] Augmenting te-topo wasRe: rough notes from meeting
Thread-Index: AQHWlDd1ccDfBZU4gEiZMuJyOKQ4q6l+Hk6Q
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2020 15:30:41 +0000
Message-ID: <81b31df7222347918cc5f0542d417803@huawei.com>
References: <881740c6-5e91-047b-c084-ba5f004e6f09@labn.net> <DB7PR07MB5340342789AE575F32826BD0A23B0@DB7PR07MB5340.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <933f2356-7a41-9710-5568-c03c691c816d@labn.net>
In-Reply-To: <933f2356-7a41-9710-5568-c03c691c816d@labn.net>
Accept-Language: it-IT, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.47.85.206]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_81b31df7222347918cc5f0542d417803huaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/H-7clU2fIuiez57znJ3QyuvQfZs>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] [Teas] Augmenting te-topo wasRe: rough notes from meeting
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ccamp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2020 15:30:49 -0000
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. 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:lberger@labn.net] Sent: sabato 26 settembre 2020 15:47 To: tom petch <ietfa@btconnect.com>; TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org> Cc: ccamp@ietf.org; TEAS WG Chairs <teas-chairs@ietf.org> 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 <teas-bounces@ietf.org><mailto:teas-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net><mailto:lberger@labn.net> 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 Teas@ietf.org<mailto:Teas@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas _______________________________________________ Teas mailing list Teas@ietf.org<mailto:Teas@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
- [CCAMP] Augmenting te-topo wasRe: [Teas] rough no… tom petch
- Re: [CCAMP] [Teas] Augmenting te-topo wasRe: roug… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] [Teas] Augmenting te-topo wasRe: roug… Italo Busi
- Re: [CCAMP] [Teas] Augmenting te-topo wasRe: roug… tom petch
- Re: [CCAMP] [Teas] Augmenting te-topo wasRe: roug… Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] [Teas] Augmenting te-topo wasRe: roug… Xufeng Liu