Re: [spring] SPRING - rechartering discussion

[<[e-mail]>]

Dear WG Chairs,

I agree with Zafar that the OAM topics listed below are of high importance.  Off-list activities on the topics below has been going on for years and the current status is that the first drafts were submitted to IETF Spring WG. From my point of view standardized solutions are preferable to proprietary ones. I think, that Spring WG should pick up and finalise the set of drafts on:
- Traffic Engineering policies for SR domains.
- The set of OAM functions required to support operation of SR domains. 
- The set of OAM functions required to enable and support Traffic Engineering for SR domains. 

This work is not close to being finalized. Further new topics may pop up while the work makes progress.

I support the Spring WG to be maintained and recharted to enable completion of the work mentioned above.

Regards,

Ruediger


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: spring [mailto:[e-mail]] Im Auftrag von Zafar Ali (zali)
Gesendet: Sonntag, 18. März 2018 03:11
An: Martin Horneffer <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>
Betreff: Re: [spring] SPRING - rechartering discussion

Dear WG Chairs, 

I completely agree with Martin. To add, the task for "New OAM techniques" is not only explicitly mentioned in the existing charter 
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-spring/) but there is a current milestone associated with it, "Specify the OAM mechanisms needed to support SPRING." 

At the moment the WG has only defined basic ping, traceroute and probing tools. From the initial deployments experiences of segment routing, SPs are coming up with the new requirements for operation and management, performance monitoring, connectivity verification and traffic accounting, etc. There are numerous individual contributions in this area listed in the following (see https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/spring/documents/ for detailed list): 

    + draft-ali-spring-sr-traffic-accounting-00. Martin specifically mentioned the requirement for traffic accounting. We requested a presentation slot where we planned to ask for WG adaptation, but due to time constraint, it did not fit the agenda. 
    + draft-hegde-spring-traffic-accounting-for-sr-paths-01 is also addressing requirement outlined by Martin. It was presented at the last IETF and was subject to engaging discussion on the mailing list. 
    + draft-ali-spring-srv6-oam-00 is on Spring WG agenda Friday, and we plan to ask for WG adaptation. 
    + draft-gandhi-spring-sr-mpls-pm-00 requested a slot, but due to time constraint, it did not fit the agenda. 
    + draft-ali-spring-srv6-pm-02 also requested a slot, but due to time constraint, it did not make it to the agenda. 
    + draft-ali-spring-bfd-sr-policy-00 and draft-mirsky-spring-bfd-05 are on Spring agenda for discussion on Friday. 
    + draft-cheng-spring-mpls-path-segment-01
    + draft-fioccola-spring-flow-label-alt-mark-01 
    + draft-li-spring-passive-pm-for-srv6-np-00 

In summary, as you can see that there is a tremendous interest in the SPRING OAM area, which is in the existing charter and a current milestone. I would like to request WG chair to complete this work in the existing milestone or add a new milestone for it. 

Thanks

Regards ... Zafar

On 3/17/18, 8:19 PM, "spring on behalf of Martin Horneffer" <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:

    Hello Bruno, Martin, Rob, and whole WG,
    
    as with many bigger protocols that actually make their way into 
    production networks, I get the strong feeling that SPRING is not done 
    with the conclusion of the core documents. As the technology gets closer 
    to production use, unforeseen topics and issues appear that need to be 
    discussed and - in many cases - standardized. I do see the need for 
    documents of the "operators' requirements" style.
    
    Conflict resolution was one good example. Others are about traffic 
    steering and traffic and/or performance measurement und monitoring.
    
    Probably not all networks have the same requirement as ours, but maybe 
    there are others that feel like us: we cannot afford to transport 
    sginificant huge amounts of traffic if we cannot measure it. Measure it 
    in a way that is suitable to generate traffic matrices and and allows to 
    offline simulate the whole network.
    Same for traffic steering: how can I actually differentiate the traffic 
    and have the routers choose the right segment lists for every packet?
    
    While I'm having very good discussions with multiple vendors about these 
    topics, I really think this is something that needs to be standardized. 
    And in this case it means, in my eyes, that the charter of the SPRING wg 
    must be enhanced in some way to allow this kind of discussion and 
    standardization.
    
    
    Best regards, Martin
    
    
    Am 05.03.18 um 17:59 schrieb [e-mail]:
    > Hello WG,
    >   
    > now that nearly all the core documents are in the hands of IESG or beyond, we think it is time to (re)discuss rechartering.
    > We brought up that question few meetings ago and the feedback, at that  time, was that the WG at least needs to be maintained to discuss the extensions following deployment feedback.
    >
    > But we need also identify technical directions.
    >   
    > In order to initiate the discussion we are proposing some high level items but we'd like to make clear a few points before:
    >   * these are only proposals; what might end-up as the next steps for SPRING will be what the WG is willing to work on (which includes having cycles for that).
    >   * what the WG might be rechartered to do is not necessarily limited to that; so other proposals are welcome.
    >   
    >   So, we thought of the following:
    >   
    >   * general architectural work / extensions
    >   there are still few items on our plate and we expect that some might need to be progressed, and we should maybe allow for others to come.
    >   
    >   * service chaining
    >   last meeting there were proposals discussed in SPRING to realize some form of service chaining. any work in that space would require close coordination with SFC and maybe other WG.
    >   
    >   * yang
    >   we are a bit behind here and there is definitely work to do.
    >
    >
    > So please comment on these and propose additional items.
    >
    > We'll likely have a dedicated slot in London but we'd like to progress before that.
    >
    > Thank you,
    > --Martin, Rob, Bruno
    >
    >   > -----Original Message-----
    >   > From: Martin Vigoureux [mailto:[e-mail]]
    >   > Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:25 PM
    >   > To: [e-mail]
    >   > Cc: [e-mail]; Alvaro Retana (aretana)
    >   > Subject: Next steps for SPRING?
    >   >
    >   > WG,
    >   >
    >   > in the session we have opened the discussion on the future of the WG,
    >   > putting all options on the table (recharter/close/sleep).
    >   > As a foreword, we still have few WG Documents that we need to -and will-
    >   > push towards IESG (and a greater number that need to reach RFC status),
    >   > but with those we'll have reached most if not all of our milestones,
    >   > thus the question on what's next.
    >   >
    >   > So, we think we have heard during the session that closing wasn't
    >   > desired and one reason for that is to have a home to share and discuss
    >   > deployment considerations as the technology gets deployed.
    >   > There are also a few individual documents knocking at the door, and some
    >   > of them were presented during the session.
    >   >
    >   > To reach out to everyone, we are thus asking the question on the list.
    >   > We would like to hear from you all what the working group should be
    >   > focussing on.
    >   >
    >   > Note, the expectation is that future items should not be use-cases but
    >   > rather be technology extensions/evolutions.
    >   >
    >   > Thank you
    >   >
    >   > Martin & Bruno
    >
    > _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    >
    > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
    > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
    > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
    > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
    >
    > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
    > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
    > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
    > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
    > Thank you.
    >
    > _______________________________________________
    > spring mailing list
    > [e-mail]
    > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
    >
    
    _______________________________________________
    spring mailing list
    [e-mail]
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
    

_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring