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

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

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-connectivity-multi-domain-02%22&as_sitesearch=mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas/>
> 
> 	
> 
> draft-klee-teas-actn-connectivity-multi-domain
> <http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-klee-teas-actn-connectivity-multi-domain-02.txt>
> 
> 	
> 
> -02
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-klee-teas-actn-connectivity-multi-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-multitenant-vno-00%22&as_sitesearch=mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas/>
> 
> 	
> 
> draft-kumaki-teas-actn-multitenant-vno
> <http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-kumaki-teas-actn-multitenant-vno-00.txt>
> 
> 	
> 
> -00
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kumaki-teas-actn-multitenant-vno-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-model-net-topology-01%22&as_sitesearch=mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas/>
> 
> 	
> 
> draft-lam-teas-usage-info-model-net-topology
> <http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-lam-teas-usage-info-model-net-topology-01.txt>
> 
> 	
> 
> -01
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lam-teas-usage-info-model-net-topology-01.txt>
> 
> 			
> 
> 2015-07-03  
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/images/search-small.gif
> <https://www.google.com/search?as_q=%22draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements-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.txt>
> 
> 			
> 
> 2015-07-27  
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/images/search-small.gif
> <https://www.google.com/search?as_q=%22draft-leebelotti-teas-actn-info-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.txt>
> 
> 			
> 
> 2015-07-02  
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/images/search-small.gif
> <https://www.google.com/search?as_q=%22draft-leeking-teas-actn-problem-statement-00%22&as_sitesearch=mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas/>
> 
> 	
> 
> draft-leeking-teas-actn-problem-statement
> <http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-leeking-teas-actn-problem-statement-00.txt>
> 
> 	
> 
> -00
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-leeking-teas-actn-problem-statement-00.txt>
> 
> 			
> 
> 2015-06-09 
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/images/search-small.gif
> <https://www.google.com/search?as_q=%22draft-suzuki-teas-actn-multidomain-opc-00%22&as_sitesearch=mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas/>
> 
> 	
> 
> draft-suzuki-teas-actn-multidomain-opc
> <http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-suzuki-teas-actn-multidomain-opc-00.txt>
> 
> 	
> 
> -00
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-suzuki-teas-actn-multidomain-opc-00.txt>
> 
> 			
> 
> 2015-07-06  
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/images/search-small.gif
> <https://www.google.com/search?as_q=%22draft-xu-teas-actn-abstract-alarm-report-00%22&as_sitesearch=mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas/>
> 
> 	
> 
> draft-xu-teas-actn-abstract-alarm-report
> <http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-xu-teas-actn-abstract-alarm-report-00.txt>
> 
> 	
> 
> -00
> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-teas-actn-abstract-alarm-report-00.txt>
> 
> 			
> 
> 2015-07-06
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/images/search-small.gif
> <https://www.google.com/search?as_q=%22draft-ceccarelli-teas-actn-framework-00%22&as_sitesearch=mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas/>
> 
> 	
> 
> draft-ceccarelli-teas-actn-framework
> <http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ceccarelli-teas-actn-framework-00.txt>
> 
> 	
> 
> -00 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ceccarelli-teas-actn-framework-00.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
> 
>  
>