Re: [Teas] 答复: Proposed charter update

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Mon, 15 October 2018 14:50 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 4B426130E8A for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Oct 2018 07:50:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (768-bit key) reason="fail (body has been altered)" 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 9FATAFGAdFTB for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Oct 2018 07:50:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gproxy1-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy1-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.25.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EEE9D130E81 for <teas@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Oct 2018 07:50:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cmgw14.unifiedlayer.com (unknown [10.9.0.14]) by gproxy1.mail.unifiedlayer.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1370E33E3167E for <teas@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Oct 2018 08:50:11 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmsmtp with ESMTP id C4CAggQcNvdTuC4CAg1kEO; Mon, 15 Oct 2018 08:50:11 -0600
X-Authority-Reason: nr=8
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From: References:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To:Cc:Content-Transfer-Encoding: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=IfnSHISeRoHqr1bTL+h/yPHmsFPHzN1UbysoZAPH4ok=; b=M6B1ZwkiPw5dusDLchijmj802G mYSasSS53xDVe5M66Qup3yvnFQ407KyvEkueaPSskWzRaw6WrIDqPf3EWPVGFujE8XKZmk15dyNDC +8/SV+gbeWfl9bteCOxChujhS;
Received: from pool-100-15-106-211.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([100.15.106.211]:34920 helo=[IPv6:::1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.91) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1gC4CA-001fSG-Gl; Mon, 15 Oct 2018 08:50:10 -0600
To: Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>, 'Vishnu Pavan Beeram' <vishnupavan@gmail.com>, 'TEAS WG' <teas@ietf.org>, 'TEAS WG Chairs' <teas-chairs@ietf.org>
References: <CA+YzgTsRGs8tyn4d8jykTLtUNJ=bTXrsG5N+bDpu99mAUufx5g@mail.gmail.com> <00af01d461ce$aae18290$00a487b0$@org.cn>
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Message-ID: <37c3639d-c8e3-da65-1ddc-121503b261f4@labn.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 10:50:09 -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: <00af01d461ce$aae18290$00a487b0$@org.cn>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------5771917E13AA674E0D06DB3A"
Content-Language: en-US
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: 100.15.106.211
X-Source-L: No
X-Exim-ID: 1gC4CA-001fSG-Gl
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-Source-Sender: pool-100-15-106-211.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([IPv6:::1]) [100.15.106.211]:34920
X-Source-Auth: lberger@labn.net
X-Email-Count: 8
X-Source-Cap: bGFibm1vYmk7bGFibm1vYmk7Ym94MzEzLmJsdWVob3N0LmNvbQ==
X-Local-Domain: yes
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/66VaMoZ9FUf4kxgkRgSoRv9w0LQ>
Subject: Re: [Teas] =?utf-8?b?562U5aSNOiBQcm9wb3NlZCBjaGFydGVyIHVwZGF0ZQ==?=
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 15 Oct 2018 14:50:17 -0000

Hi Aijun,
    Thank you for the comments.  Please see below for responses in-line.


On 10/11/2018 9:55 PM, Aijun Wang wrote:
>
> Hi, Vishnu and Lou:
>
> I have the following suggestions(inline) for the charter, please see 
> whether they are appropriate or not?
>
> Best Regards.
>
> Aijun Wang
>
> Network R&D and Operation Support Department
>
> China Telecom Corporation Limited Beijing Research Institute,Beijing, 
> China.
>
> *发件人:*Vishnu Pavan Beeram [mailto:vishnupavan@gmail.com]
> *发送时间:*2018年10月8日14:50
> *收件人:*TEAS WG; TEAS WG Chairs
> *主题:*[Teas] Proposed charter update
>
> 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:
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1l5y3nH3KmOQbHOMp-5FRFm1SK5riS5qi1klve-2D-2DkyUbSU_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwIDaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CFHVfW0WsgxSqM6wTJiWE5evUJAdlUl1fm7E0WVbiS8&m=6pI1yDFJYCLr4YBDXOEJFxWzJQMmsW5q1X0ic60qgM4&s=XHgp3ISuFZZj_FUiGKK2ZjRndlSyIxgomtfqyEt3DRU&e=
>
> 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,
>
> [Aijun Wang]: Is it more suitable to say “non-domain specific” instead 
> of “non-technology specific” ? I guess the author may mention that 
> RSVP-TE can be used in packet and non-packet network here.
>
How about:
   The TEAS group is also responsible for standardizing RSVP-TE 
signaling protocol mechanism that are not related to a specific 
switching technology.

>
> 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.
>
> [Aijun Wang]: Is it more concise here to say “Centralized control 
> model are also supported”?
>

It may be more concise, but I think it is less clear so would prefer to 
leave as is.

>
>  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.
>
> [Aijun Wang]: Is there any situation that conform with ACTN principles 
> but don’t’ make use of PCE? Is it more generalized to say “This 
> includes, for example, both networks that include the use of PCE or not”?
>
I don't believe ACTN requires use of PCE so I think the current text 
covers such cases while the proposed revision does not.

>
>    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.
>
> [Aijun Wang]: Is it more accurate to say “Functional specification of 
> extensions for routing (OSPF, ISIS) and for path computation _protocol 
> (PCEP)_,..”
>
I'm not sure, I really don't see any difference in the language.

Rereading this that it should say "may also use RSVP-TE".

>
>    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.
>
> [Aijun Wang]: Is it more accurate to say “Definition and extension of 
> management and security techniques for TE path and TE tunnels 
> signaling….”, instead of only mentioning the “RSVP-TE signaling”?
>
This is a fair point.  How about "...for TP path and tunnel control"?

>
>   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.
>
> [Aijun Wang]: Is it more generalized to replace “end-point protection” 
> with “TE-path and TE-tunnel protection”?
>
These are just examples.  How about: "including, for example, ..."?

Thank you again for the feedback!
Lou

>
>    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@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas