Re: [Teas] Proposed charter update

Lou Berger <> Tue, 09 October 2018 16:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BD2B13136E for <>; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 09:49:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 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=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (768-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KQzEK4Omx8Te for <>; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 09:49:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 55D6D13135D for <>; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 09:49:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A1C71E0A32 for <>; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 10:49:05 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from ([]) by cmsmtp with ESMTP id 9vBwgGnJYj0so9vBwgtrsi; Tue, 09 Oct 2018 10:49:05 -0600
X-Authority-Reason: nr=8
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version :Date:Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=7QF4rRBvaGPOKcoqJ7qqUrxsl6kswBpq4R/lOI7MJTw=; b=EZE1SXV7pBTSHxa4cbW0iWP7bh 7Sn6akd8rFFCb7+sPUHFSzyauHnToUyETkJRFGEjrdKcImkbjZD1hN9N+w8GUv2dyCge0N7rh/eW/ zr9NG5SGxZZRS3mTBXUuCwXgS;
Received: from ([]:43564 helo=[IPv6:::1]) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.91) (envelope-from <>) id 1g9vBw-003BYW-N5; Tue, 09 Oct 2018 10:49:04 -0600
To: "Andrew G. Malis" <>, Vishnu Pavan Beeram <>
Cc: TEAS WG Chairs <>,
References: <> <>
From: Lou Berger <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 12:49:02 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname -
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain -
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain -
X-BWhitelist: no
X-Source-L: No
X-Exim-ID: 1g9vBw-003BYW-N5
X-Source-Sender: ([IPv6:::1]) []:43564
X-Email-Count: 10
X-Source-Cap: bGFibm1vYmk7bGFibm1vYmk7Ym94MzEzLmJsdWVob3N0LmNvbQ==
X-Local-Domain: yes
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Proposed charter update
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2018 16:49:09 -0000

Hi Andy,

On 10/9/2018 9:53 AM, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
> Pavan and Lou,
> The proposed update looks good, especially with the inclusion of 
> DetNet. However, support for DetNet should be more general than just 
> support for "use cases", which could be interpreted to be limited to 
> those in the forthcoming DetNet Use Cases RFC. Rather, how about:
well it says "use cases" not "Use Cases", but...
>  - With the DetNet WG on mechanisms (YANG models and protocols) to 
> support the DetNet architecture and forwarding plane.
How about:
- With the DetNet WG on mechanisms (YANG models and protocols) to 
support DetNets

> Also, something else occurs to me that is somewhat more speculative 
> and may actually not fit, but I'll mention it anyway. While SFC 
> doesn't require traffic engineering in terms of bandwidth guarantees, 
> it does require the ability to establish constrained (policy-based) 
> paths in terms of the ordering of nodes for a particular flow or 
> chain, and TEAS certainly has a lot of experience with signaling 
> protocols to establish constrained paths. So perhaps there's some 
> coordination with the SFC WG that may make sense there. Just a thought.

Fair enough, how about:
- With the SFC WG on mechanisms (YANG models and protocols) to support SFCs

> Cheers,
> Andy
> On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 2:49 AM Vishnu Pavan Beeram 
> < <>> wrote:
>     Hi,
>     Over the past few months we've noted that our charter could use a
>     bit of
>     an update to match the current state of TEAS and other working
>     groups.
>     We've taken a pass at this and have a proposed revision. Once the WG
>     agrees on changes, we'll pass those changes along to our AD who is the
>     actual owner of our charter.  The text is enclosed below as well as
>     available with changes tracked at:
>     Please discuss any proposed changes on the list, i.e., changes to the
>     charter that are suggested in the google-doc but not agreed to
>     here will be ignored.
>     We'd like to have the changes agreed to by the end of this month
>     so the
>     IESG may have time to review/act before  IETF103.
>     Thank you,
>     Pavan and Lou
>     --
>     Draft Update to TEAS WG Charter (Version 1)
>     The Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling (TEAS) Working
>     Group
>     is responsible for defining IP, MPLS and GMPLS traffic engineering
>     architecture and identifying required related control-protocol
>     functions, i.e., routing and path computation element functions. The
>     TEAS group is also responsible for standardizing generalized, i.e.,
>     non-technology specific, RSVP-TE signaling protocol mechanisms,
>     Traffic Engineering (TE) is the term used to refer to techniques that
>     enable operators to control how specific traffic flows are treated
>     within their networks. TE is applied to packet networks via MPLS TE
>     tunnels and LSPs, but may also be provided by other mechanisms such as
>     forwarding rules similar to policy-based routing. The MPLS-TE control
>     plane was generalized to additionally support non-packet technologies
>     via GMPLS.  RSVP-TE is the signaling protocol used for both
>     MPLS-TE and
>     GMPLS. Centralized and logically centralized control models are also
>     supported, e.g., via Abstraction and Control of Traffic Engineered
>     Networks (ACTN) and stateful-PCE.
>      The TEAS WG is responsible for:
>        a) Traffic-engineering architectures for generic applicability
>     across packet and non-packet networks.. This includes, for
>     example, both
>     networks that include the use of PCE and those that conform with ACTN
>     principles but don't make use of PCE. The PCE architecture itself
>     is out
>     of the WG scope.
>        b) Definition of protocol-independent metrics and parameters
>     (measurement and/or service attributes) for describing links and
>     tunnels/paths required for traffic engineering (and related routing,
>     signaling and path computation). These will be developed in
>     conjunction
>     with requests and requirements from other WGs to ensure overall
>     usefulness.
>        c) Functional specification of extensions for routing (OSPF, ISIS)
>     and for path computation (PCE), including those that provide general
>     enablers of traffic-engineering systems that also use RSVP-TE.
>     Protocol
>     formats and procedures that embody these extensions will be done in
>     coordination with the WGs supervising those protocols.
>        d) Functional specification of generic (i.e., not data plane
>     technology-specific) extensions for RSVP-TE, and the associated
>     protocol
>     formats and procedures that embody these extensions.
>        e) Definition of control plane mechanisms and extensions to allow
>     the setup and maintenance of TE paths and TE tunnels that span
>     multiple
>     domains and/or switching technologies, where a domain may be an IGP
>     area, an Autonomous System, or any other region of topological
>     visibility.
>        f) Definition and extension of management and security techniques
>     for RSVP-TE signaling. This includes configuring and monitoring
>     RSVP-TE
>     as well as mechanisms used to configure, control, and report OAM
>     within
>     TE networks. YANG and MIB modules may be considered.
>       The TEAS working group is chartered to deliver the following:
>        1. Definition of additional abstract service, link, and path
>     properties such as jitter, delay, and diversity. Extensions to IGPs to
>     advertise these properties, and extensions to RSVP-TE to request
>     and to
>     accumulate these properties. Work with PCE WG to include these
>     properties in computation requests.
>        2. Specification of terminology, architecture, and protocol
>     requirements for abstraction and distribution of TE information
>     between
>     interconnected TE domains/layers.
>        3. Specification and protocol extensions for a GMPLS External
>     Network-to-Network Interface (E-NNI), i.e., multi-domain GMPLS
>     support.
>        4. Protocol mechanisms to signal associated LSPs in particular with
>     different source nodes.
>        5. Requirements and protocol extensions for additional protection
>     mechanisms including end-point protection, protection of P2MP
>     LSPs, and
>     inter-domain protection.
>        6. YANG models in support of Traffic Engineering, in coordination
>     with working groups working on YANG models for network topology
>     and for
>     technology-specific network attributes.
>       Requirements may be documented in stand-alone RFCs, may be folded
>     into architecture or solutions RFCs, may be recorded on a wiki, or may
>     be documented in an Internet-Draft that is not progressed to RFC.
>       The TEAS WG will coordinate with the following working groups:
>        - With the MPLS WG to maintain and extend MPLS-TE protocol
>     mechanisms and to determine whether they should be generalized.
>        - With the CCAMP WG to maintain and extend non-packet, data plane
>     technology-specific TE protocol mechanisms and to determine
>     whether they
>     should be generalized.
>        - With the LSR (OSPF and ISIS) WG to maintain or extend TE routing
>     mechanisms.
>        - With the PCE WG on uses of a PCE in the traffic-engineering
>     architecture, on PCE extensions per the above, and on RSVP-TE
>     extensions
>     to support PCE WG identified requirements.
>        - With the IDR WG on the use of BGP-LS in TE environments.
>        - With the DetNet WG on mechanisms (YANG models and protocols) to
>     support DetNet use cases.
>        - With the SPRING WG on TE architecture and, where appropriate,
>     TE-related protocol extensions.
>     In doing this work, the WG will cooperate with external SDOs (such as
>     the ITU-T and the IEEE 802.1) as necessary.
>     _______________________________________________
>     Teas mailing list
> <>
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list