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
>