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

[Leeyoung <[e-mail]>]

Hi Pavan,

We’d love to do so. But not with the procedural violation! This would set a wrong precedent in IETF. I’d like to hold all of us accountable to the right procedure. As I indicated in my previous email to the list, the description of ACTN is already there in the referenced drafts, framework and problem statement. Justification of ACTN into the TEAG WG has already expressed in the adoption process, has it not?

The requirements are based on operators’ use-cases under the umbrella of ACTN. There is no reason to challenge them at this juncture, isn’t?

Regards,
Young


From: Vishnu Pavan Beeram [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 12:20 PM
To: Lou Berger
Cc: Varma, Eve L (Eve); Daniele Ceccarelli; Leeyoung; [e-mail]; TEAS WG
Subject: Re: [Teas] 答复: Poll on draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements-01 a WG documents


> Could someone (individually or collectively) provide a definition of ACTN that would be suitable for inclusion in a -01 of the WG requirements document on the topic?

Any input on this would be much appreciated.

I thought the proposal texts from Igor and Xian were pretty good for a start. Can the authors please build on this and put together some text that succinctly defines ACTN (text that, hopefully, justifies using "ACTN" to characterize the set of requirements that have been put forth)? Given all the work that has gone into this (and all the documents that have been put together so far) over the past couple of years, I would like to think that this wouldn't take too long.
Regards,
-Pavan


On 9/22/2015 11:39 AM, Varma, Eve L (Eve) wrote:
> Hi Lou,
>
> Adding a definition seems a reasonable thing to do, considering all the discussion that's taken place.  From a procedure perspective, I assume the authors should first publish draft-teas-actn-requirements-00 as a WG draft without any changes to the content, and thereafter proceed from there to change “Transport” to “TE” within the draft and add a definition?
>
> Best regards,
> Eve
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lou Berger [mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>]
> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 10:31 PM
> To: Daniele Ceccarelli; Leeyoung; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> Cc: Varma, Eve L (Eve); Vishnu Pavan Beeram; TEAS WG
> Subject: Re: [Teas] 答复: Poll on draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements-01 a WG documents
>
> Daniele, ACTN authors, All,
>
> On 9/21/2015 8:44 AM, Daniele Ceccarelli wrote:
>> ...
>> Looking forward to progress a fruitful thread and publishing the WG draft so work can progress.
>>
> Okay, let's take a step back here.
>
> The basic question is how does ACTN fit into the TEAS WG.
>
> Based on the discussions to date in the context of the WG, we thought we understood where we were going WRT ACTN, but perhaps not.  We also clearly expected to answer this in greater detail  as the WG  moved towards "ACTN" solutions.
>
> As has been pointed out earlier in the thread, having the first document on a topic without any definition of the topic is a bit awkward.  So perhaps now would be a good time to provide a definition of ACTN that can be added to the requirements document.
>
> Could someone (individually or collectively) provide a definition of ACTN that would be suitable for inclusion in a -01 of the WG requirements document on the topic?
>
> Also as mentioned before, it may be helpful to look at the MPLS-TP requirements document, RFC 5654, which provides an example of such a definition.
>
> Thank you,
> Lou
>
>
>