[Teas] rough notes from today's session
Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Mon, 27 March 2017 18:19 UTC
Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
X-Original-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 745961293E3 for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Mar 2017 11:19:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.195
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.195 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.796, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, WEIRD_PORT=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (768-bit key) header.d=labn.net
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 IkjrkhP0pC7v for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Mar 2017 11:19:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gproxy3-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy3-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.30.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 7B55D129490 for <teas@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Mar 2017 11:19:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 11522 invoked by uid 0); 27 Mar 2017 18:19:39 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO cmgw4) (10.0.90.85) by gproxy3.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 27 Mar 2017 18:19:39 -0000
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmgw4 with id 16Kc1v00q2SSUrH016KfP8; Mon, 27 Mar 2017 12:19:39 -0600
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.2 cv=QdwWhoTv c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=6Iz7jQTuP9IA:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=E1R-V3ATAAAA:8 a=ye27oVNoAAAA:8 a=ARNkrULPAAAA:20 a=q3HlZu9LWJALIOWqg8oA:9 a=lZfTQt0khEWwxK29:21 a=kIRp6o41xxPljHzW:21 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=ZAWDZjMpEu4A:10 a=w1C3t2QeGrPiZgrLijVG:22 a=BQiZhFUHZ1rCP-FNh-iw:22 a=QFTRpsdjryHBM-TMFRBd:22
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Date: Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Sender:Reply-To:Cc:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To:References:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=7S7DrF1/wc75qvNBDtFrFpxGpUJClfkUZG3j2E8TTKQ=; b=qYCorbvI42nObvWQfm8yl7qya+ xMbGsK1imBtFJoyTRV/9hgilQVYcIfLoTEZZnvAdsRRqQqFrhIie7medyjpwIufEdMVZ7IcENdRF2 +H9BlHV2pQLET7CemQI+JUJ7+;
Received: from pool-100-15-84-20.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([100.15.84.20]:34166 helo=[IPv6:::1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1csZEu-0002iB-IP for teas@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Mar 2017 12:19:36 -0600
To: TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Message-ID: <8d8708e6-92c3-503d-6096-535c281ed59d@labn.net>
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 14:19:35 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - box313.bluehost.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - labn.net
X-BWhitelist: no
X-Source-IP: 100.15.84.20
X-Exim-ID: 1csZEu-0002iB-IP
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-Source-Sender: pool-100-15-84-20.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([IPv6:::1]) [100.15.84.20]:34166
X-Source-Auth: lberger@labn.net
X-Email-Count: 86
X-Source-Cap: bGFibm1vYmk7bGFibm1vYmk7Ym94MzEzLmJsdWVob3N0LmNvbQ==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/2jckWCL4XTfM7UbsyA7085QgXhE>
Subject: [Teas] rough notes from today's session
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 18:19:47 -0000
> TEAS Agenda For IETF 98 > Version: Mar 23, 2017 > > Session 1 > Monday March 27th 2017 > 09:00 - 11:30 - Monday Morning Session I > Room: Vevey 1/2 > > Session 2: Joint with MPLS, PCE, CCAMP > FRIDAY, March 31, 2017 > 0900-1130 Morning Session I > Zurich D > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/98/agenda/mpls/ > > Etherpad: http://etherpad.tools.ietf.org:9000/p/notes-ietf-98-teas?useMonospaceFont=true > Meetecho: http://www.meetecho.com/ietf98/teas > Audio stream: http://ietf98streaming.dnsalias.net/ietf/ietf982.m3u > Jabber: xmpp:teas@jabber.ietf.org?join > > Available post session: > Recording: https://www.ietf.org/audio/ietf98/ > YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/ietf/playlists > > Session 1 > Num Start Duration Information > 0 9:00 10 Title: Administrivia & WG Status > Draft: n/a > Presenter: Chairs Lou Berger: presentation 8 will go before 6 > 1 9:10 15 Title: WG Draft updates > Draft: Many > Presenter: Chairs > 2 9:25 20 Title: Yang Data Model for TE Topologies > Draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-topo > Presenter: Xufeng Liu Michael Shaarf: Model is complex to implement, particularly from the single layer perspective. Would be worth defining what is needed for single-layer, i.e. can you provide direction for the simple case. ???: Fatai: this is foundational, please publish as soon as possible Igor Bryskin: We have a tutorial that includes tunnel model as well -- we publish seperately > 3 9:45 20 Title: A YANG Data Model for Traffic Engineering Tunnels and Interfaces > A YANG Data Model for Resource Reservation Protocol > A YANG Data Model for RSVP-TE > Draft: https:/tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-yang-te > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-yang-rsvp > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-yang-rsvp-te > Presenter: Tarek Saad Lou Berger: WRT items that are not explicitly covered in specs, but allowed for -- should these be features or not Tarek: we've struggled with this, and are generally using features when something isn't supported by all Lou Berger: Also please revisit the modules to ensure that technology specific parts aren't in the generic and the reverse Dhruv: Can you clarify the semantics of bandwidth-type? Tarek: static type is used if the bandwidth is explicitly set; dynamic type is used to indicate auto-bandwidth functionality. > 4 10:05 10 Title: ACTN Framework and Requirements > Draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-actn-framework > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-actn-requirements > Presenter: Young Lee/Daniele Ceccarelli Michael Shaarf: the document seems a bit dated, it sems it needs an update to reflect recent developments and state of industry in 2017, e.g., requirments have not kept pace with framework. Also not clear what all interfaces are all about, e.g., CMI Young: MMI is a special case of MPI so no need for specific requirements. We can add specifics for MPI and MMI in the requirements Lou: it is not clear where the requirements apply Lou: I am proposing to take the text from the mapping draft into the framework draft to help people understanding the ACTN terminology > 5 10:15 10 Title: Applicability of YANG models for ACTN > ACTN Abstraction Methods > Draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zhang-teas-actn-yang > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lee-teas-actn-abstraction > Presenter: Daniele / Haomian ACTN Abstraction Methods (Daniele) Igor: how does white topology helps with proprietary extensions? Dainele: do not make it white. Unless you have an MDSC that understands the proprietary extensions, you should suggest not to use white topology and go for grey topology Applicability of YANG models for ACTN (Haomian) Michael: for CMI technology-specific attributes, is there no overlap with other WGs? > 8 10:25 10 Title: Traffic Engineering and Service Mapping Yang Model > Draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lee-teas-te-service-mapping-yang > Presenter: Dhruv Dhody Igor: It is too simple, there is no 1:! mapping between L3SM and TE Tunnel. The only way to do is via versatile policy models Dhruv: we have a map-type which is not yet an exaustive list but new modes can be added to address this use case Michael: not clear the use case. The mapping for L3SM can be more complex, expecially with multi-AS case. Why this mapping cannot be internal and needs a YANG model? Dhruv: need to visualize which TE Tunnel is used for an L3SM, e.g., to monitor it Michael: With multiple-AS we need to envision if we have one or multiple MDCS which impacts the whole ACTN architecture > 6 10:35 10 Title: A Yang Data Model for ACTN VN Operation > Draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lee-teas-actn-vn-yang > Presenter: Dhruv Dhody Igor: what is the difference between VN model and TE abstract topology model. Abstract topology can address all these things Lou: please have a discussion on the list about this comment before the next meeting > 7 10:45 10 Title: YANG models for ACTN TE Performance Monitoring Telemetry and Network Autonomics > (real :49) Draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lee-teas-actn-pm-telemetry-autonomics > Presenter: Young Lee Michael: I have not found requirements for telemetry in the requirements document. The telemetry information is packet technology specific Igor: we are defining telemetric information for TE Tunnel/Topology with technology-specific augmentation Lou: the authors of the two drafts to work together to reconcile the two documents > 9 10:55 10 Title: PCE in Native IP Network > (10:58) Draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wang-teas-pce-native-ip > Presenter: Aijun Wang Lou Berger: How many have read draft -- a few How many think that the WG should be working on this type of TE? -- very few (conclusion) It doesn't seem like there is currently support for this in the WG, perhaps send mail on the how you are addressing questions previously raised to generate interest and discussion on the list > 10 11:05 10 Title: Recommendations for RSVP-TE and Segment Routing LSP co-existence > (11:08) Draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sitaraman-sr-rsvp-coexistence-rec > Presenter: Harish Sitaraman / Vishnu Pavan Beeram Lou Berger: How many think the WG should be looking at signalled and SR based TE - A reasonable number How many have read the document - about the same How many think this draft is a good foundation for the WG activity in this area - about the same (conclusion) Looks like there is support for adoption, will take it to the list. > 11 11:15 10 Title: Fast Reroute Procedures For Associated Bidirectional Label Switched Paths (LSPs) > Draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhishah-teas-assoc-corouted-bidir > Presenter: Rakesh Gandhi Stewart Bryant: How do you handle one way failures and maintain co-route requirment George Swallow: control plane will detect failure and take link down Tarek: downstream node can detect failure and signal failure Lou Berger: How many think this function is important for the WG to work on - A reasonable number How many have read the document - a few less, but still a reasonable number How many think this draft is a good foundation for the WG activity in this area - about the same Does anyone have reservations on adoption? -- no (conclusion) Looks like there is support for adoption, will take it to the list. > 12 11:25 5 Title: ONF/T-API Services vs. IETF/YANG Models and Interfaces > Draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bryskin-teas-yang-ietf-vs-onf-00 > Presenter: Igor Bryskin Lou: we usually do not see drafts with comparisons with other groups, what is the objective? Igor: trying to compare two models to see what is missing Lou: have you found something missing in the TEAS model? Igor: no Scott: as LS person, the perception from ONF people of this draft is negative. If you wish to involve ONF people, it needs to be softened to be more collaborative Igor: we have at least got attention from T-API Lou: getting attention from other SDOs is not our mission, we care about what is missing in our work and not in what it is missing on the other groups Michael: concerns with the wording, the "versus" word is not inviting collaboration Daniele: having this work was one of the intention of the Transport NBI DT in CCAMP, it would be good to synch-up with the DT Gert: Fatai: we are doing standard for the industry, if there is confusion in the industry, we need to help resolve it. I think this draft is useful > Adjourn 11:30 > Note takers (feel free to add your name here): Haomian Zheng Italo Busi
- Re: [Teas] rough notes from today's session Matt Hartley (mhartley)
- [Teas] rough notes from today's session Lou Berger
- Re: [Teas] rough notes from today's session Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE/Stuttgart)