Re: [Teas] Raw notes from TEAS session
"Matt Hartley (mhartley)" <mhartley@cisco.com> Tue, 17 November 2015 19:08 UTC
Return-Path: <mhartley@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0D921B337B for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 11:08:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.085
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.085 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.585, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, WEIRD_PORT=0.001] autolearn=ham
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 rqSGXtm_WKC1 for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 11:08:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B6441B3385 for <teas@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 11:08:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=13735; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1447787315; x=1448996915; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=4VnZ2ON1qdKqBEQ39KCPXFe0NZFsB0uTN5n1tq8fAGQ=; b=Arw2+Mv4eJv24JxbcitKMtpHhRCXL3t466uwGY5YyDs1Ozmc85gBoV7Z 4M8Ei/HZBWvuygMbkvQgJq4UZ7FACWaj/K4sUvUFXng6mvy4rK/4Oek9m vkfVGKawYl9DGtio1t919g2cKTB5KuxpWTJywbB6VDl2mY9oQZrzG+Yey M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AWAgAwektW/5FdJa1egztTbwa9ZHcBDYFlFwqFD18CgVA4FAEBAQEBAQGBCoQ0AQEBAwEBAQE3LgMDBAcFCwIBCA4EBh4QJwsXDgIEAQ0FCAESiAsIDbxJAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBGIZUhH6ENYUEBY0biS4BhSCCLIVXgWJJg3eDJYQQiwODcQEfAQFCghEdgVZyAYNAQgGBBgEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,309,1444694400"; d="scan'208";a="45736328"
Received: from rcdn-core-9.cisco.com ([173.37.93.145]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 17 Nov 2015 19:08:33 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-005.cisco.com (xch-aln-005.cisco.com [173.36.7.15]) by rcdn-core-9.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id tAHJ8XaV016164 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 17 Nov 2015 19:08:33 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.102.11) by XCH-ALN-005.cisco.com (173.36.7.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 13:08:33 -0600
Received: from xch-rcd-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) by XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com ([173.37.102.11]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.000; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 13:08:33 -0600
From: "Matt Hartley (mhartley)" <mhartley@cisco.com>
To: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Teas] Raw notes from TEAS session
Thread-Index: AQHRF4jjYIQmnt4AmUSUE/OOVKOjiZ6gnyIAgABp7gD//50YYA==
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 19:08:33 +0000
Message-ID: <f523be8907fe4bc487c290113e8a3def@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com>
References: <563AE5AB.6080205@labn.net> <9890b16bc76348c6bafa9c8ceed3d988@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com> <564B788C.1050201@labn.net>
In-Reply-To: <564B788C.1050201@labn.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [161.44.213.95]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/-Pu9su_qranlhFYvG8yN13Lc9uM>
Cc: "Matt Hartley (mhartley)" <mhartley@cisco.com>, Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vbeeram@juniper.net>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Raw notes from TEAS session
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <teas.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas/>
List-Post: <mailto:teas@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 19:08:38 -0000
> Thank you! So you think this is ready for review and distribution, right? As far as I'm concerned, yes. Although given that I made quite a few changes, would it be worth giving the WG a day or two to comment if they want to? Cheers Matt > > On 11/17/2015 1:44 PM, Matt Hartley (mhartley) wrote: > > All, > > > > I've gone over the audio and made some markups to the etherpad based on > that. We have one person who commented on the last presentation (Mach's > rfc5316bis draft) who remains anonymous at this point. > > > > Cheers > > > > Matt > > > >> All, > >> > >> Thanks to we have Jon Hardwick, Haomian Zheng and other anonymous > >> note takers to thank for the enclosed raw notes from today. These > >> notes are also available, and editable, via the URL: > >> http://etherpad.tools.ietf.org:9000/p/notes-ietf-94-teas > >> > >> Please review and feel free to add your corrections via the link above. > >> Changes/notes will be reviewed and approved by the chairs (and WG) > >> before being finalized. Please limit changes to what actually > >> transpired in the meeting. Session audio is available at > >> http://www.ietf.org/audio/ietf94/ietf94-room301-20151104-0900.mp3 > >> > >> If you have a question or want to discuss any topics raised in the > >> session, please feel free to do so on the list, but please do so with > >> an appropriate Subject line. > >> > >> Thank you! > >> Lou and Pavan > >> > >> > >> IETF 94 - TEAS Agenda > >>> TEAS Agenda For IETF 94 > >>> Version: Nov 03, 2015 > >>> > >>> Thursday, November 5th, 2015 > >>> 0900 - 11:30 - Thursday Morning Session I > >>> Room: 301 > >>> Presentation Start Time Duration Information > >>> 0 9:00 5 Title: Administrivia & WG Status > >>> Draft: > >>> Presenter: Chairs > >>> 1 9:05 5 Title: WG Draft updates > >>> Draft: Many > >>> Presenter: Chairs > >> 2 drafts in RFC Ed Q > >> 2 drafts with IESG > >> 1 draft in WGLC > >> 4 liaisons > >> BBF liaison requires response by 8 Nov; detailed review required. > >> CCAMP is coordinating the response. > >> > >> The working groups is reminded to use the mailing list to discuss > >> issues, not just to report back on the resolution of issues. WG > >> consensus is determined on the mailing list. > >> Wiki page is now available, for experts to share their view point. > >> > >> Cyril: SRLG collection draft: authors will address comments received > >> and welcomes new comments. > >> Lou: RSVP egress protection draft authors are asking for last call - > >> it is a good time to review this draft. > >> > >>> 2 9:10 10 Title: Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Ingress > >> Local Protection > >>> Draft: > >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-ingress-protection-0 > >> 4 > >>> Presenter: Huaimo Chen > >> 8 people support relay-message method. 4 people support > >> proxy-ingress method. > >> Each group of supporters are saying that their preferred method is > >> simpler. > >> Lou Berger: the selction between the two options was obtained by > voting? > >> (Yes) Simple voting really isn't the same as consensus. Please bring > >> the technical tradeoffs to the mailing list and let's try to discuss > >> and reach consensus there. If you (authors) think it would be > >> helpful we can have a conference call (interim) to discuss the more > details. > >> > >>> 3 9:20 15 Title: TE Topology Model > >>> Draft: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-yang- > >> te-topo > >>> Presenter: Xufeng Liu > >> Lou Berger: Please move (advanced) scheduling to its own document > >> Xufeng > >> Liu: We have to decide which WG Lou Berger: it's fine to start in > >> teas, but please seperate it Lou Berger: YANG model align to the I2RS > >> draft will be done in their WG? > >> Is it finished in teas? > >> Xufeng Liu: Almost, I2RS draft will be updated. > >> Xufeng: L3 topology model will have a reference to the TE topology > model. > >> Alex: We must be careful to avoid circular dependencies between these > >> two models. > >> Lou: It's good that you are working together to resolve this; if > >> there is a coordination issue between WGs then please raise with > >> chairs; please discuss technical issues on the mailing lists. > >> > >>> 4 9:35 15 Title: RSVP and TE Yang models > >>> Draft: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-yang- > >> rsvp > >>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-yang-te > >>> Presenter: Tarek Saad > >> Ina: Operators want to turn MPLS on explicitly on interfaces. > >> Lou: The model allows MPLS and RSVP to be enabled independently. > >> Question to Ina: is that what you wanted? > >> Ina: We wanted to see if we could get rid of the need to enable them > >> independently but we could not find a way to do that. > >> Pawel: We use unnumbered interfaces a lot, this model has to cover > them. > >> Lou: (To Tarek) It's not always clear which RFCs you are mapping back > >> to and which you are supporting. It is important for implementers to > >> know this. > >> Lou: I think it's time to pull out the PSC specific pieces from this > >> document. The split pieces can start as a -00 working group document > >> as they are being split out from a WG doument. > >> > >>> 5 9:50 10 Title: OpenConfig MPLS Model (TE Aspects) > >>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-openconfig-mpls- > >> consolidated-model > >>> Presenter: Ina Minei > >> Anees: Find these models on github.com/openconfig/public. > >> > >>> 6 10:00 10 Title: Usage of IM for network topology to > >> support TE Topology YANG Module Development > >>> Draft: > >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lam-teas-usage-info-model-net- > >> topology > >>> Presenter: Scott Mansfield > >> Lou Berger: working with information models is appreciated. Your > >> intent is to build an information model that informs the data models > >> that we are working on, correct? (Scott, yes) In which case, please > >> could you bring any gaps that you find to the mailing list? > >> Scott: Yes, will bring that back to the authors. > >> Lou Berger: for Appendix A, confused about why a Data model is > presented. > >> Scott: it demonstrates how you can generate a data model if you > >> already have a info model, an example for guideline. > >> Scott: Appendix A is supposed to be an example; it is intended to > >> guide you to what you are building. > >> Lou: a pointer to this information may be better; it is confusing to > >> find a data model in an information model document. > >> Lou: It would also be good to provide the same sort of feedback to > >> CCAMP on their technology-specific models. > >> > >>> 7 10:10 10 Title: Requirements for Abstraction and Control > >> of Transport Networks > >>> Draft: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-actn- > >> requirements > >>> Presenter: Young Lee > >> Pavan: is there any ACTN work that need to change TEAS charter? > >> Young: We don't think it's going to change the charter. > >> > >>> 8 10:20 10 Title: Framework for Abstraction and Control of > >> Transport Networks > >>> Draft: > >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ceccarelli-teas-actn-framework > >>> Presenter: Daniele Ceccarelli > >> Giovanni: What is the relationship between this draft and the te- > >> interconnection draft? > >> Lou Berger: that is already clarified, as > >> Adrian: bring some terminology from te-interconnection into ACTN work > >> to avoid inconsistency. > >> Young Lee: would like to collaborate on terminology level. > >> Young: we did not invent any new terminology, so if there is a > >> conflict in usage then we need to elaborate on that. > >> Lou: See RFC 7426 - you may wish to reuse that terminology, that is > >> what the IETF is using. > >> Lou: is everything in the framework controller-based? > >> Daniele: Yes - ACTN is between controllers, not between controllers > >> and NE > >> Lou: In TEAS we want to make sure that the number of layers is > >> arbitrary > >> Daniele: This is OK, stacking of layers is allowed. > >> > >>> 9 10:30 10 Title: Information Model for Abstraction and > >> Control of TE Networks (ACTN) > >>> Draft: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-leebelotti- > teas- > >> actn-info > >>> Presenter: Sergio Belotti > >> Lou: When you talked about connectivity topology there seems to be > >> overlap with Scott's presentation. It would be good if you could work > >> together on that. > >> > >>> 10 10:40 10 Title: Architecture for Scheduled Use of > >> Resources > >>> Draft: > >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zhuang-teas-scheduled-resources > >>> Presenter: Adrian Farrel > >> Ken: Are future bookings always first come first serveed or are there > >> other prioritizations? > >> Adrian: This is a question of what policy do you want to implement on > >> your servce which is beyond our scope. > >> Robin: We have proposed a similar time-based approach for BGP flowspec. > >> ??? I think there should be some framework for synchronizing the > >> time- based request with the actual service flow. > >> > >>> 11 10:50 10 Title: Framework for Temporal Tunnel Services > >>> Draft: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-teas- > frmwk- > >> tts > >>> Presenter: Huaimo Chen > >> Lou: it seems that this documents and the preceding document both > >> talk about the same problem space. Is the WG interested in working > >> on this problem? > >> Daniele: I am really interested in this work, but what is the scope? > >> Are we interested only in networks with RSVP-TE? > >> Lou: No, we are interested in all TE networks. We want to discuss > >> architecture for now, nor solutions. > >> > >> Gert: I have never seen a large scale TE signaling deployment. So I > >> do not have much interest in seeing these drafts. > >> Lou: This discussion has come up often over many years, but we have > >> not got to the point where enough people are prepared to work on it. > >> > >> Lou: Who is interested in working on this? Raise your hands. (About > >> 15 > >> people.) > >> Lou: Now who does not want to work on it? Raise your hands. (About > >> 6-8 > >> people.) OK, somewhat more people want to work on it than don't. > >> > >> Lou: WG please go and read this draft and comment, let's see if there > >> is value on continue doing this. > >> Himanshu: I would prefer to ask who wants to work on the distributed > >> model? > >> Adrian: > >> Daniele: prefer to follow a single model. > >> > >>> 12 11:00 10 Title: Architecture and Requirement for > >> Distribution of Link-State and TE Information via PCEP > >>> Draft: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-leedhody-teas- > >> pcep-ls > >>> Presenter: Dhruv Dhody > >> Lou Berger: Any architecture changes? > >> Lou: Most of this is basic architecture, and most of it is existing > >> architecture. So having a discussion of the basic architecture in a > >> protocol-agnostic way is OK for clarification, but we should focus > >> only on the architectural aspects. > >> Dhruv: We are not trying to introduce a new architectural concept. We > >> are trying to assess the impact and applicability to use a new > protocol. > >> Dhruv: Making this document agnostic of the protocol destroys the > >> value of the document. The whole purpose is to explore the > >> applicability of using PCEP for this. > >> > >> Sergio: To provide remote information you need to have IGP in the > >> network, so what is the advtangtage of using PCEP as well? > >> Dhruv: > >> > >>> 13 11:10 10 Title: PCE as a Central Controller (PCECC) > >>> Draft: > >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zhao-pce-central-controller-use > >> r- > >> cases > >>> Presenter: Dhruv Dhody/Quintin Zhao > >> Lou: How many have read this document? (Quite a few) > >> Lou: informational or standard track? > >> Dhruv: there are two drafts related, informational for use case one > >> (presented here), and experimental for the protocol extension (in PCE > >> working group). > >> Lou: Who thinks this is a good idea? (Almost the same) > >> Lou: Who thinks we should not work on this (One or two) > >> Sergio: Not a bad idea, but PCE should be a part of the controller, > >> not the controller itself. > >> > >>> 14 11:20 10 Title: ISIS Extensions in Support of Inter-AS > >> MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering > >>> Draft: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-teas- > >> rfc5316bis > >>> Presenter: Mach Chen > >> Les Ginsberg: Does this draft belong in ISIS WG or here? > >> Lou: The original RFC was done at the same time as the OSPF version - > >> does the OSPF document suffer the same flaws as RFC 5316? > >> Mach: No, the problems are only for IS-IS. > >> Chris Hopps: Happy for this document to move to ISIS WG. > >> > >>> Adjourn 11:30 > >>> > >>> > >> Note takers add your name here > >> Jon Hardwick > >> Haomian Zheng > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Teas mailing list > >> Teas@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas >
- [Teas] Raw notes from TEAS session Lou Berger
- Re: [Teas] Raw notes from TEAS session Matt Hartley (mhartley)
- Re: [Teas] Raw notes from TEAS session Lou Berger
- Re: [Teas] Raw notes from TEAS session Matt Hartley (mhartley)
- Re: [Teas] Raw notes from TEAS session Lou Berger