Re: [Teas] 答复: Poll on draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements-01 a WG documents

[Daniele Ceccarelli <[e-mail]>]

Lou,

I don’t think it that having to a detailed post-mortem of "who said what and when" is leading us towards resolution, and would prefer to take a more constructive and collaborative approach.  However, I do feel compelled to reply to two of your statements that I view as unwarranted and take great exception to, below.  
 
Excerpt 1. You said: "This goes to what ACTN is.  Every time I've asked the question ("what is it and what's different/new") in the past.  I'm shown a picture of a lot of boxes with unique names and am told *This is ACTN*. "
 
I am extremely concerned that this statement is being made after WG adoption (with a wide support from the WG) as motivation for changing the title.  As you know, this has been explained in 1 bar BoF, 2 BoFs, the requirement draft, the framework draft, an info model draft already including many primitives, not to mention the many use cases drafts and presentation (plus a conference call). I imagine all the people that supported the adoption and that raised their hands at the polling in Dallas have at least a basic idea of what ACTN is.  For example, Igor perfectly understood the intent and expressed it quite well. In addition to Igor’s explanation, I would add that ACTN “doesn't care” how the network is controlled, (whether centralized, distributed, control plane or management plane), but only about providing a centralized hierarchy that presents to the final customer not only an abstracted network (nodes and links) but also services and Virtual Network Functions (more details in the fwk).
 
Excerpt 2. You said:”If the authors are only interested in the WG blessing what has already been put together without any WG input than I suggest that the authors don't understand the IETF process.”
 
You surely know that this is not the case, the authors being well aware – and respectful - of the IETF process, and have never suggested that the drafts are ready for publication. Certainly, as usual for a draft adopted by the WG, it still needs a lot of work (e.g., corrections, refinements, and enhancements) within its stated ACTN scope.  While the authors are happy to see their work improved and modified, turning it into something totally different (or much wider) from their focus immediately after a successful WG adoption process, when the usual approach is to retain the file name and just remove the individual author, is disturbing.  
 
It would be helpful if you could tell us what you mean as "complimentary to the interconnected-TE work" to better understand what requirements are not covered under the current ACTN umbrella, as this would give an opportunity for other contributors who might be interested in addressing those requirements to develop targeted drafts.  
 
Looking forward to progress a fruitful thread and publishing the WG draft so work can progress.
Daniele





> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lou Berger [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: domenica 20 settembre 2015 15:22
> To: Zhenghaomian; Igor Bryskin; Leeyoung; Doolan, Paul (Coriant - US/Irving)
> Cc: TEAS WG; Daniele Ceccarelli; Vishnu Pavan Beeram; Varma, Eve L (Eve);
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: 答复: [Teas] Poll on draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements-01 a WG
> documents
> 
> 
> Haomian,
> 
> Thank you for the input.  see below.
> 
> 
> On 9/19/2015 1:52 AM, Zhenghaomian wrote:
> > Hi, Lou and Igor,
> >
> > Nice discussion for clarifying what is new requirement for ACTN. The
> authors may have more comments on specifying that. I tried to share my
> point here.
> >
> > I like the idea ACTN is an umbrella that contains a wide range of work. The
> draft will definitely be polished later (as a WG draft) and the scope will
> become clear by carefully understanding what requirement is in the ACTN
> scope and what is not. This is necessary and just the reason why we consider
> it as 'ACTN requirement' draft. If you say there is different understanding
> with ACTN scope or the current scope is not clear enough, I would like to
> agree and will be open for discussion; however if you think the 'ACTN' should
> be equivalent to 'complementary TE-interconnected info-exchange work',
> that is misunderstanding. I don't think this is the motivation/objective for
> ACTN authors. ACTN, as an umbrella, should be proper to have its
> requirement, use case, framework and other drafts with its name, that is
> different from 'complementary TE-interconnected work', so it should be fine
> to keep the actn term in name abbreviation.
> 
> This goes to what ACTN is.  Every time I've asked the question ("what s it and
> what's different/new") in the past.  I'm shown a picture of a lot of boxes with
> unique names and am told *This is ACTN*.  So to me this says ACTN is a
> solution -- and if ACTN is a solution to a problem, then the requirements
> document should be focused on the problem, not the solution. Hence, this
> discussion.
> 
> Now, Igor's definition (which I'll paraphrase as ACTN = Large scale integrated
> control of TE networks -- and I'm sure he/someone will correct or modify)
> helps to say that ACTN is a problem space not a specific solution.
> 
> > For the distributed or 'logical centralized' control models, my opinion is
> model is something solution related rather than requirement, and can be
> included in framework.
> 
> Sure, but this only makes sense if the problem being solved by ACTN != just
> 'logical centralized' control models..
> 
> Thanks,
> Lou
> 
> >
> > Thanks a lot.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> > Haomian
> >
> >
> > -----邮件原件-----
> > 发件人: Teas [mailto:[e-mail]] 代表 Lou Berger
> > 发送时间: 2015年9月19日 3:37
> > 收件人: Igor Bryskin; Leeyoung; Doolan, Paul (Coriant - US/Irving)
> > 抄送: TEAS WG; Daniele Ceccarelli; Vishnu Pavan Beeram; Varma, Eve L
> > (Eve); [e-mail]
> > 主题: Re: [Teas] Poll on draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements-01 a WG
> > documents
> >
> > Igor,
> >
> > On 9/18/2015 2:51 PM, Igor Bryskin wrote:
> >> Hi Lou,
> >> You asked:
> >> - Abstraction and Control are both things supported by today's standards,
> so what's new from the requirements perspective?
> >>
> >> First, I think that at this stage it is a bit too late to ask questions like this,
> isn't it?
> > So the new part of ACTN (WRT TEAS) identified/discussed/seemingly
> agreed to in Prague was the support for a "logically centralized" control
> model.  -- more on this later.
> >
> > My question here, really was more limited than ACTN as a whole but really
> the requirements documents.  The core requirements say nothing about
> distributed or "logically centralized" control models and the only place it
> shows is by inference in the interfaces section.  So the question is an honest
> one, and I appreciate you being the 1st at taking a stab at responding to it.
> >
> >> Second, I'd leave for the designers of the ACTN to answer this. My
> personal answer would be this:
> >> Luyuan was talking about the need of interconnecting millions of MSFT
> servers. How do you describe a transport network capable of doing that?
> One solution is via hierarchical abstraction of numerous TE domains provided
> by multiple providers. Please, correct me if I am wrong, but I am not aware
> of any IETF documents setting requirements for said abstracted hierarchical
> TE networks: presentation, features, re-configuration capabilities, models,
> etc. Nor I am aware of any architecture or framework describing what
> exactly operators and/or SDN controllers/applications can do with such
> networks, in particular how they can orchestrate end-to-end transport
> services, manipulate and monitor them, place them with sufficient diversity
> from each other, etc. How they can perform capacity analysis of said
> networks and other network planning functions? How they convey policies
> wrt various transport behaviors and profiles? This kind of things IMO need to
> be addressed under the ACTN umbrella.
> > This is all goodness and also the closest I've seen to a succinct definition of
> what's new in ACTN.  Perhaps it can serve as the foundation of a short
> paragraph defining what it is for inclusion in the intro of -01 of the WG draft.
> >
> > Your answer is much broader than the above definition ("logically
> centralized" control model), which is fine, but also highlights a bit why we're
> trying to frame the work now as it is being formally brought into the WG.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Lou
> >> Regards,
> >> igor
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Teas [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Lou Berger
> >> Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 1:44 PM
> >> To: Leeyoung <[e-mail]>; Doolan, Paul (Coriant -
> >> US/Irving) <[e-mail]>
> >> Cc: [e-mail]; TEAS WG
> >> <[e-mail]>; Daniele Ceccarelli
> >> <[e-mail]>;
> >> Varma, Eve L (Eve) <[e-mail]>; Vishnu Pavan
> >> Beeram <[e-mail]>
> >> Subject: Re: [Teas] Poll on draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements-01 a WG
> >> documents
> >>
> >>
> >> Young,
> >>
> >> Daniele closed his slides by talking about overall status.  So the comments
> were both about the document and more general.  I listened to the (painful)
> audio and added a few more notes:
> >> see
> >> http://etherpad.tools.ietf.org:9000/p/notes-ietf-93-teas?useMonospace
> >> F
> >> ont=true
> >>
> >> also perhaps you can answer the following:
> >>
> >> - What about the requirements in the current draft is limited to 'ACTN'?
> >>
> >> or said another way:
> >>
> >> - Abstraction and Control are both things supported by today's standards,
> so what's new from the requirements perspective?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Lou
> >> On 9/18/2015 12:47 PM, Leeyoung wrote:
> >>> Hi Lou,
> >>>
> >>> Actually this is meeting minutes on the ACTN Framework draft
> presentation and we agreed to include some gap analysis of some type.
> >>> We will come up with that topic in the upcoming revision on this. I
> thought you are going to poll the framework draft soon.
> >>>
> >>> In regards to the requirements draft, what Paul is quoting is correct and
> the current requirement draft incorporated your comments on impact on
> YANG and others.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks.
> >>> Young
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Lou Berger [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >>> Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 11:36 AM
> >>> To: Doolan, Paul (Coriant - US/Irving)
> >>> Cc: Varma, Eve L (Eve); Daniele Ceccarelli; Vishnu Pavan Beeram;
> >>> [e-mail]; TEAS WG
> >>> Subject: Re: [Teas] Poll on draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements-01 a WG
> >>> documents
> >>>
> >>> Paul,
> >>>
> >>> On 9/18/2015 11:33 AM, Doolan, Paul (Coriant - US/Irving) wrote:
> >>>> Hi Lou,
> >>>>
> >>>>> The comments were made in Pargue (publicly
> >>>> So that we're all on the same page (Eve wasn't at the Prague meeting),
> what you are recorded in the minutes as having said with respect to draft-
> lee-teas-actn-requirements-01 is:
> >>>>
> >>>> Lou Berger: A good start on requirements, and notable section on
> impact
> >>>>           on YANG but this section needs further development. I would also
> like
> >>>>           to see more discussion on future requirements. For adoption, I
> think we
> >>>>           need to polish the aforementioned sections.
> >>> Also stated as related to this draft and the framework :
> >>>
> >>>          Lou Berger: Understanding what the protocol extension
> requirements are
> >>>           would be very helpful. The interconnected-te document went
> through a
> >>>           similar process. Please look to focus your document in the context
> of
> >>>           technologies that we have available, and its ok to have "this piece
> >>>           is missing".
> >>>           Daniele: Is it ok to keep that discussion (gap analysis) in this
> document?
> >>>           Lou Berger: Yes
> >>>           Young Lee: The document was intended to be used as a framework
> with
> >>>           functional components. Is it ok?
> >>>           Lou Berger: Yes, this is a complimentary to the interconnected-te
> >>>           document. Please authors, consider the previous comment and see
> if you
> >>>           can update the document.
> >>>
> >>> The minutes actually are  unfortunately a bit sparse (and the
> >>> recording of the chairs mic is really poor) and I did mention that
> >>> this would come up in the context of adoption.  Particularly missing
> >>> was the discussion on the work being an addition/complement to
> existing work by covering
> >>> "logically centralized" TE solutions.   Both Daniele and Young seems to
> >>> agree with these points.
> >>>
> >>> If anyone feels up to listening to the minutes and updating the
> >>> minutes that would be great.
> >>>
> >>> Audio is at
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/audio/ietf93/ietf93-congresshalli-20150722-1300.
> >>> m
> >>> p3
> >>> and edits can be made to
> >>> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/teas/minutes?item=minutes-93-teas.html and
> >>> we can get the official minutes corrected from there.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Which is fine by me but does IMO qualify as advance warning of your
> current position. No "oh and by the way change the title" for example.
> >>> The title isn't being change, the file name is.
> >>>
> >>> Lou
> >>>
> >>>> pd
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sep 18, 2015, at 10:55 AM, Lou Berger wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 09/18/2015 08:56 AM, Varma, Eve L (Eve) wrote:
> >>>>>> Dear all,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I must agree with Daniele's points.   In reviewing the inputs re
> >>>>>> draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements becoming a WG document, which
> >>>>>> resulted in its adoption as such, I don't recall any inputs other
> >>>>>> than "Support"; I didn't see "Support, but clarify.." or
> >>>>>> "Support, but change.."  Given this, I am truly surprised at the
> discussion that has now arisen.
> >>>>> Eve,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> See my last message.  The comments were made in Pargue (publicly
> >>>>> and expanded upon privately), and I had a discussion with the
> >>>>> Authors via e-mail during the adoption period  -- in this brief
> >>>>> e-mail exchange I indicated that I decided to not impede adoption
> >>>>> as I believe the current contents of the document is a great starting
> point for the WG.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I specifically didn't want the discussion on what is basically how
> >>>>> the "ACTN" *solution* fits in with the rest of IETF TE to impede
> >>>>> the adoption of what is essentially a generic TE requirements
> document.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> While I have no real issue in changing Transport to TE in the
> >>>>>> document title to move this forward, though I don't see the issue
> >>>>>> with using the term Transport (which hasn't been considered
> >>>>>> solely
> >>>>>> L0/L1 for a long time), I hope that the authors would be able to
> >>>>>> move forward quickly to publish as a WG draft with essentially the
> same title.
> >>>>> Changing the title is not yet on the table and would not occur in
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> -00 rev of the document.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Lou
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Bes regards,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Eve
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> *From:*Teas [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of
> *Daniele
> >>>>>> Ceccarelli
> >>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, September 18, 2015 8:38 AM
> >>>>>> *To:* Vishnu Pavan Beeram
> >>>>>> *Cc:* Doolan, Paul (Coriant - US/Irving); Lou Berger;
> >>>>>> [e-mail]; TEAS WG
> >>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Teas] Poll on draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements-01
> >>>>>> a WG documents
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Pavan,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Please see inline.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> BR
> >>>>>> Daniele
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> *From:*Vishnu Pavan Beeram [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >>>>>> *Sent:* venerdì 18 settembre 2015 14:05
> >>>>>> *To:* Daniele Ceccarelli
> >>>>>> *Cc:* Lou Berger; Doolan, Paul (Coriant - US/Irving);
> >>>>>> [e-mail]
> >>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>; TEAS WG
> >>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Teas] Poll on draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements-01
> >>>>>> a WG documents
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> A few points to mull over and move the discussion along:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - Fitting "ACTN" into the "TEAS" body of work:
> >>>>>> Work focusing on "how TE networks can be abstracted and managed
> >>>>>> in a
> >>>>>> controller(s) driven environment" is an obvious item of interest
> >>>>>> to the WG. And this is primarily where we believe the "ACTN" work
> >>>>>> can contribute; the requirements discussed in the document that
> >>>>>> just got adopted by the WG aligns well with this. The intent
> >>>>>> behind the name-change was to have something generic enough to
> >>>>>> capture what we want this work to be about. Note that this is
> >>>>>> just a requirements document and since this is the first document
> >>>>>> to be adopted in this realm, it is important to get the "naming"
> >>>>>> right now rather than later. "VN Controller" is perhaps not a
> >>>>>> great choice -- very much open to other choices that would capture
> the essence of the first statement above.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> */[DanCe] The IETF is contribution driven. If the WG contributed
> >>>>>> a draft related to a subset of what the chairs expect, it means
> >>>>>> that there is interest just in that subset. If the chairs wanted
> >>>>>> something generic enough they should have asked for a document
> >>>>>> generic enough (before the wg adoption), not call for the
> >>>>>> adoption of a document and then ask to change its scope. The
> >>>>>> authors are interested in writing ACTN requirements, which not
> >>>>>> only is a subset of what the chairs ask for but is also slightly
> >>>>>> different since we're not speaking just about nodes and links. /*
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - Complementing existing TEAS work:
> >>>>>> <draft-ietf-teas-interconnected-te-info-exchange> discusses the
> >>>>>> architecture for the exchange of TE information between
> >>>>>> interconnected TE networks in support of end-to-end TE path
> >>>>>> establishment. It discusses in great detail the notion of
> >>>>>> "abstraction in TE networks". Our sincere hope (belief rather) is
> >>>>>> that the <actn-requirements> document (and other <actn> related
> >>>>>> documents that get adopted by the WG) would be complementary to
> >>>>>> (/consistent with) the <interconnected-te-info-exchange> draft.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> */[DanCe] What does complementary mean? Complementary in the
> >>>>>> sense that interconnected TE is for multi-domain LSP
> >>>>>> establishment in distributed control plane and ACTN does the same
> >>>>>> for centralized one? ACTN has a broader scope. The multi domain
> >>>>>> and multi layer part can be seen as complimentary, but again ACTN
> >>>>>> is not just nodes and links, it includes services, VNF, network
> >>>>>> slices and so
> >>>>>> on./*
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - Focus on the term "Controller":
> >>>>>> One train of thought is to use this new work (conveniently
> >>>>>> facilitated by the induction of ACTN into TEAS) to focus solely on the
> "controller"
> >>>>>> aspects (given the belief that non-controller aspects are
> >>>>>> adequately covered by existing solutions). Personally, I don't
> >>>>>> have a strong preference on whether the "naming" should reflect
> >>>>>> this or not (Danielle's latest suggestion - use "TE" in the ACTN
> >>>>>> acronym - is pretty close to what I personally would like it to
> >>>>>> be), but it is important to get some clarity on this "scoping" detail
> before zeroing in on any "name".
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> */[DanCe] The scoping should have been made clear before the call
> >>>>>> for adoption. The authors scoped the draft as X and asked for the
> >>>>>> adoption of X and now they are requested to publish the draft as
> >>>>>> a starting point for Y. In 2 years we have put together use
> >>>>>> cases, an architecture and would have liked to start working on
> >>>>>> solutions for that, we'd like not to start from the beginning
> >>>>>> again. Please note the list of ACTN related drafts in TEAS (not
> >>>>>> to consider the expired ones still submitted as
> >>>>>> draft-xxxxx-actn.)/*
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> */ /*
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/images/search-small.gif
> >>>>>> <https://www.google.com/search?as_q=%22draft-klee-teas-actn-
> conne
> >>>>>> c
> >>>>>> t
> >>>>>> ivity-multi-domain-02%22&as_sitesearch=mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/
> >>>>>> b
> >>>>>> r
> >>>>>> owse/teas/>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> draft-klee-teas-actn-connectivity-multi-domain
> >>>>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-klee-teas-actn-connectivity-multi
> >>>>>> -
> >>>>>> d
> >>>>>> omain-02.txt>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -02
> >>>>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-klee-teas-actn-connectivity-mul
> >>>>>> t
> >>>>>> i
> >>>>>> -domain-02.txt>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 2015-06-08
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/images/search-small.gif
> >>>>>> <https://www.google.com/search?as_q=%22draft-kumaki-teas-
> actn-mul
> >>>>>> t
> >>>>>> i
> >>>>>> tenant-vno-
> 00%22&as_sitesearch=mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/t
> >>>>>> e
> >>>>>> a
> >>>>>> s/>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> draft-kumaki-teas-actn-multitenant-vno
> >>>>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-kumaki-teas-actn-multitenant-vno-
> >>>>>> 0
> >>>>>> 0
> >>>>>> .txt>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -00
> >>>>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kumaki-teas-actn-multitenant-vn
> >>>>>> o
> >>>>>> -
> >>>>>> 00.txt>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 2015-07-06
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/images/search-small.gif
> >>>>>> <https://www.google.com/search?as_q=%22draft-lam-teas-usage-
> info-
> >>>>>> m
> >>>>>> o
> >>>>>> del-net-topology-01%22&as_sitesearch=mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/br
> >>>>>> o
> >>>>>> w
> >>>>>> se/teas/>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> draft-lam-teas-usage-info-model-net-topology
> >>>>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-lam-teas-usage-info-model-net-top
> >>>>>> o
> >>>>>> l
> >>>>>> ogy-01.txt>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -01
> >>>>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lam-teas-usage-info-model-net-t
> >>>>>> o
> >>>>>> p
> >>>>>> ology-01.txt>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 2015-07-03
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/images/search-small.gif
> >>>>>> <https://www.google.com/search?as_q=%22draft-lee-teas-actn-
> requir
> >>>>>> e m
> >>>>>> ents-01%22&as_sitesearch=mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas/>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements
> >>>>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements-01.txt
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -01
> >>>>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements-01.t
> >>>>>> x
> >>>>>> t
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 2015-07-27
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/images/search-small.gif
> >>>>>> <https://www.google.com/search?as_q=%22draft-leebelotti-teas-
> actn
> >>>>>> - i
> >>>>>> nfo-00%22&as_sitesearch=mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas/>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> draft-leebelotti-teas-actn-info
> >>>>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-leebelotti-teas-actn-info-00.txt>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -00
> >>>>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-leebelotti-teas-actn-info-00.tx
> >>>>>> t
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 2015-07-02
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/images/search-small.gif
> >>>>>> <https://www.google.com/search?as_q=%22draft-leeking-teas-
> actn-pr
> >>>>>> o
> >>>>>> b
> >>>>>> lem-statement-
> 00%22&as_sitesearch=mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/brows
> >>>>>> e
> >>>>>> /
> >>>>>> teas/>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> draft-leeking-teas-actn-problem-statement
> >>>>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-leeking-teas-actn-problem-stateme
> >>>>>> n
> >>>>>> t
> >>>>>> -00.txt>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -00
> >>>>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-leeking-teas-actn-problem-state
> >>>>>> m
> >>>>>> e
> >>>>>> nt-00.txt>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 2015-06-09
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/images/search-small.gif
> >>>>>> <https://www.google.com/search?as_q=%22draft-suzuki-teas-actn-
> mul
> >>>>>> t
> >>>>>> i
> >>>>>> domain-opc-
> 00%22&as_sitesearch=mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/t
> >>>>>> e
> >>>>>> a
> >>>>>> s/>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> draft-suzuki-teas-actn-multidomain-opc
> >>>>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-suzuki-teas-actn-multidomain-opc-
> >>>>>> 0
> >>>>>> 0
> >>>>>> .txt>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -00
> >>>>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-suzuki-teas-actn-multidomain-op
> >>>>>> c
> >>>>>> -
> >>>>>> 00.txt>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 2015-07-06
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/images/search-small.gif
> >>>>>> <https://www.google.com/search?as_q=%22draft-xu-teas-actn-
> abstrac
> >>>>>> t
> >>>>>> -
> >>>>>> alarm-report-
> 00%22&as_sitesearch=mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse
> >>>>>> /
> >>>>>> t
> >>>>>> eas/>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> draft-xu-teas-actn-abstract-alarm-report
> >>>>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-xu-teas-actn-abstract-alarm-repor
> >>>>>> t
> >>>>>> -
> >>>>>> 00.txt>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -00
> >>>>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-teas-actn-abstract-alarm-rep
> >>>>>> o
> >>>>>> r
> >>>>>> t-00.txt>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 2015-07-06
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/images/search-small.gif
> >>>>>> <https://www.google.com/search?as_q=%22draft-ceccarelli-teas-
> actn
> >>>>>> -
> >>>>>> f
> >>>>>> ramework-
> 00%22&as_sitesearch=mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tea
> >>>>>> s
> >>>>>> /
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> draft-ceccarelli-teas-actn-framework
> >>>>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ceccarelli-teas-actn-framework-00.
> >>>>>> t
> >>>>>> xt>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -00
> >>>>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ceccarelli-teas-actn-framework-
> >>>>>> 0
> >>>>>> 0
> >>>>>> .txt>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 2015-06-15
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> */ /*
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> */ /*
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -Pavan
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 3:22 AM, Daniele Ceccarelli
> >>>>>> <[e-mail]
> >>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Lou,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Is your concern mostly related to the "transport" word? In the
> >>>>>> last years the concept of transport evolved pretty much, mostly
> >>>>>> with transport SDN and it is no longer tied to the L0-L1 but it
> >>>>>> covers whatever mean used to transport IP. Young already pointed
> >>>>>> out what the draft aims to cover.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If you're so strongly willing to change the name we could turn
> >>>>>> "Transport" into TE so that it becomes Abstraction and Control of
> >>>>>> TE networks. (this is my personal proposal, not shared by the
> >>>>>> other ACTNers)...and ACTN remains, but with the "broader" scope
> >>>>>> and it is "more" complementary to the interconnected TE.
> >>>>>> The change of the file name is not just the change of a file name.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Daniele
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>> From: Lou Berger [mailto:[e-mail]
> >>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>]
> >>>>>>> Sent: venerdì 18 settembre 2015 02:51
> >>>>>>> To: Doolan, Paul (Coriant - US/Irving)
> >>>>>>> Cc: TEAS WG; [e-mail]
> >>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Teas] Poll on draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements-01
> >>>>>>> a WG documents
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Paul,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 9/17/2015 4:28 PM, Doolan, Paul (Coriant - US/Irving) wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Hello Lou and Pavan,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> this instruction to change ACTN to VN-Controller seems a little
> >>>>>>>> high
> >>>>>>> handed.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I/we hear you. But...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Young Lee, Danielle and their co-authors have spent a long time
> >>>>>>>> working
> >>>>>>> on this and creating mind share and name recognition for ACTN. I
> >>>>>>> know what it stands for as do audiences around the world to whom
> >>>>>>> the team have introduced the idea and from whom they have
> garnered support.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> That's fair, but from our perspective the IETF has been working
> >>>>>>> TE a lot longer than the term ACTN has been around, and that is
> >>>>>>> the context where this work fits.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> As I stated at the last meeting, it's my (not to speak for
> >>>>>>> Pavan, but
> >>>>>> think he
> >>>>>>> agrees too)  option that this work is complimentary to the
> >>>>>> interconnected-te
> >>>>>>> particularly as it is more focused on the
> >>>>>>> controller/non-fully distributed control plane approaches.   We
> think
> >>>>>>> that covering such controller based TE models as very important
> >>>>>>> and
> >>>>>> fills an
> >>>>>>> important gap in the TE architecture.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Right now, we (the WG) are just at the requirements stage and
> >>>>>>> those requirements apply quite broadly and that is what we (the
> >>>>>>> chairs) want to make clear by the name change.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> In contrast I have absolutely no idea what a vn-controller
> >>>>>>>> requirements draft might be about and, if you persist with this
> >>>>>>>> renaming, it clearly makes no sense to make 'no
> >>>>>>> other changes to the draft' since, at the very least, the (new)
> >>>>>>> title
> >>>>>> needs
> >>>>>>> explanation.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It's just a filename.  That said, we (chairs) are trying to
> >>>>>>> project
> >>>>>> where the
> >>>>>>> work will end up based on the WG consensus process.  Chairs have
> >>>>>>> changed names in the past and been right and sometimes wrong,
> >>>>>>> but in the end we have an RFC published with the title that
> >>>>>>> represents WG consensus and an RFC number.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I really think the draft should be adopted as (originally) named.
> >>>>>>>> If
> >>>>>> you want
> >>>>>>> to change the name then coming back to the WG with a clearly
> >>>>>>> articulated rationale and asking for its support would seem to
> >>>>>>> me to be a more
> >>>>>> inclusive
> >>>>>>> way to do things.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It's not unusual for chairs to change names of a draft at adoption.
> >>>>>>> Normally it goes without comment.  Perhaps if this wasn't the first
> 'actn'
> >>>>>>> document it would have.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Again, we're open to alternatives that capture the scope of the
> work.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Lou
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> my 10cents,
> >>>>>>>> pd
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Sep 17, 2015, at 7:04 AM, Lou Berger wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> All,
> >>>>>>>>>   The WG poll is closed.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Authors,
> >>>>>>>>>   Please republish draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements-01 as
> >>>>>>>>> draft-ietf-teas-vn-controller-requirements-00 with only the
> >>>>>>>>> date and file name changed.
> >>>>>>>>> Comments received (publicly and privately) should be discussed
> >>>>>>>>> and addresses in the -01 version.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Please note the file name change. Normally it's pretty formulaic.
> >>>>>>>>> But this draft is a little different as it has evolved over
> >>>>>>>>> time to its current form and where we expect it to  go.  In
> >>>>>>>>> particular, we see this draft as a companion to the
> >>>>>>>>> 'interconnected-te' work and covering the various possible
> >>>>>>>>> controller-based TE models  (where the previous work was more
> focused on fully distributed control models).
> >>>>>>>>> So we think a broader name warranted.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Again, no other changes to the draft should be made at this time.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> >>>>>>>>> Lou and Pavan
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2015 4:25 PM, Lou Berger wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> All,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> This is start of a two week poll on making
> >>>>>>>>>> draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements-01 a TEAS working group
> document.
> >>>>>>>>>> Please send email to the list indicating "yes/support" or
> >>>>>>>>>> "no/do not support". If indicating no, please state your
> >>>>>>>>>> technical reservations with the document.  If yes, please
> >>>>>>>>>> also feel free to provide comments you'd like to see
> >>>>>>>>>> addressed once the document is a WG
> >>>>>>> document.
> >>>>>>>>>> The poll ends September 16th
> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>> Lou and Pavan
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>>> Teas mailing list
> >>>>>>>>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>> Teas mailing list
> >>>>>>>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> Teas mailing list
> >>>>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Teas mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Teas mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Teas mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
> 
>