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] 答复: Proposed charter update
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
- [Teas] Proposed charter update Vishnu Pavan Beeram
- Re: [Teas] Proposed charter update Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [Teas] Proposed charter update Lou Berger
- Re: [Teas] Proposed charter update Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [Teas] Proposed charter update Vishnu Pavan Beeram
- Re: [Teas] Proposed charter update Lou Berger
- [Teas] 答复: Proposed charter update Aijun Wang
- Re: [Teas] Proposed charter update Dhruv Dhody
- Re: [Teas] 答复: Proposed charter update Lou Berger
- Re: [Teas] Proposed charter update Lou Berger
- Re: [Teas] Proposed charter update Dhruv Dhody
- [Teas] 答复: 答复: Proposed charter update Aijun Wang
- Re: [Teas] 答复: 答复: Proposed charter update Lou Berger
- Re: [Teas] 答复: 答复: Proposed charter update Aijun Wang
- Re: [Teas] Proposed charter update Lou Berger
- [Teas] 答复: Proposed charter update Dongjie (Jimmy)