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

Hi

I express the same concern with Daniele and Sergio in this thread. ACTN has a bigger scope than VN control/controller. The current requirement draft has encompassed a number of use-cases to put various requirements into a single draft as the basis of the work. 

I would ask for reconsidering the change of the draft's name. 

Best regards,
Young

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniele Ceccarelli [mailto:daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 10:06 AM
To: Lou Berger; TEAS WG; draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Teas] Poll on draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements-01 a WG documents

Hi Lou,

I´m a bit surprised by this name change. May I ask the rationale for such a request?
Is it due to the desire to get rid of the name ACTN or to the need to call it VNC? 

If you recall the MDSC used to be called VNC and we decided to change it because it was misleading. Changing the name of the entire architecture into the wrong name of a single controller is creating confusion in my opinion. The name ACTN doesn´t preclude any companionship with the interconnected-TE.
Moreover ACTN is a name that has been around for 2 years, has been used in IETF, publications and conferences...I would really like to keep it.

Thanks
Daniele

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Teas [mailto:teas-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lou Berger
> Sent: giovedì 17 settembre 2015 13:04
> To: TEAS WG; draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Teas] Poll on draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements-01 a WG
> documents
> 
> 
> 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
> > Teas@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list
> Teas@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas