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

["Varma, Eve L (Eve)" <[e-mail]>]

+1

-----Original Message-----
From: Teas [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Zhenghaomian
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 9:43 PM
To: Lou Berger; Leeyoung; Daniele Ceccarelli; TEAS WG; [e-mail]
Subject: [Teas] 答复: Poll on draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements-01 a WG documents

Hi, Lou and all,

I share the same comments on keeping the actn name in the title as Young, Daniele, Sergio, and many other people. 

I am not here to argue the IETF procedure on WG adoption. I know the chairs have the power to change the draft name, but I believe that always happens when the current title is severely misleading. Currently I don't think there is an obvious inconsistency between the title and the content of this draft, so it is not proper to change it *at this moment*. My understanding is, when people poll on this draft by saying 'yes/support', they tend to agree with the ACTN title and support the usage of such terminology, there was no such comments (about scope of transport network) during the poll. As this draft will be a WG draft, we (the WG) can definitely talk it afterwards. As you said, all the draft will end with a RFC number, why we MUST change the title abbreviation NOW? It will confuse more people. 

BTW, I don't think VN-controller can cover all the ACTN stuffs, currently the work is not limited to controller, obviously the interfaces are also considered. 

My 2 cents,
Haomian

-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Teas [mailto:[e-mail]] 代表 Lou Berger
发送时间: 2015年9月18日 9:08
收件人: Leeyoung; Daniele Ceccarelli; TEAS WG; [e-mail]
主题: Re: [Teas] Poll on draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements-01 a WG documents

Young,

See below.

On 9/17/2015 4:42 PM, Leeyoung wrote:
> Hi Lou,
>
> We spend a lot of time what Transport Network is in the past two years or so since the conception of ACTN.

Understood, but keep in mind, we're just now entering the formal standardization process. I know that many authors feel their work is mature when they submit the individual draft. But as is always the case, individual documents are just a starting point.  It is with / after adoption that change should be expected.  (again, as always) the point of such changes are to make this work more applicable to the whole WG and not just the authors/contributors who originated the work.

> In regard to Transport Network, we defined it as follows in the framework draft in Section 1:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ceccarelli-teas-actn-framework-00
>
> "The term Transport Network in this draft refers to any connection- 
> oriented network that has the ability of dynamic provisioning and 
> traffic engineering such that resource guarantees can be provided to 
> the network's clients.  Some examples of networks that are in scope of 
> this definition are optical networks, MPLS Transport Profile 
> (MPLS-TP), MPLS Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE), and other emerging 
> technologies with connection-oriented behavior."
>
> Hope this answer your first point. 

This is good, but we have a wider industry understanding of the "Transport Network" term that generally excludes portions of what we, the IETF, include as part of TE.  I think the IETF experience with MPLS-TP highlights that MPLS-TE, arguably the most deployed IETF TE technology, isn't considered by many to be a Transport Network.  Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'd bet that many who work on MPLS-TE don't even consider that they themselves are working on a "Transport Network" technology.

>
> In regards to your second point is yes I agree that abstract control also includes purely distributed control plane solutions. 
> We are not preclude this in ACTN as Danielle indicated in his previous email. 

So the IETF already has a large body of work that is focused on purely distributed control plane solutions.  I'm not sure there is a need for another set of requirements/architecture/... documents covering this topic.  I do think we all agree that there are gaps and work to be done on controller-based/non-fully distributed control models. And as I stated both publicly and privately in Prague, this is where we (the
chairs) believe this work should be focused.

Thanks,
Lou

> Thanks,
> Young
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lou Berger [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 3:25 PM
> To: Daniele Ceccarelli; TEAS WG;
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Teas] Poll on draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements-01 a WG 
> documents
>
>
> Daniele,
>     A lot of my reservation with the current title is with 'Transport 
> Networks' part.  Back pre-WG reorg, ccamp really was only concerned 
> with Transport networks.  Now with TEAS, our scope has been extended 
> to any TE network, including MPLS-TE.  So I think we need to broaden 
> the scope to all TE, not just Transport Networks.
>
> A secondary point is that purely distributed control plane solutions 
> also provide 'Abstract Control'.  Consider VNTs covered in the 
> interconnected-te draft.  So I think we need to distinguish this work 
> here too.
>
> I'm certainly not wedded to vn-controller-requirements, but I think 
> think the above concerns have to be covered.  BTW I did reread the 
> document to see if the comment really extended to the meat of the text.
> But thankfully the ACTN term isn't core to the document.
>
> Thanks,
> Lou
>
>
> On 9/17/2015 3:35 PM, Daniele Ceccarelli wrote:
>> Lou,
>>
>> I can´t imagine anything broader that Abstraction and Control of transport networks...it includes any type of control: centralized, distributed and hybrid (and spans from layer 0 to 2,5).
>>
>>> - What about the requirements in the current draft is limited to 'ACTN'?
>> Limited to the broadest concept? If we want to call it limited...
>>
>>> - Do you have an alternate name that covers any TE control 
>>> architecture that doesn't use a fully distributed control plane?
>> ACTN is ok. The PNC can be any "magic box" used to control the physical network: an SDN controller (with e.g. OF, NetConf, PCEP as SBI, a PCE that controls a GMPLS network, an NMS, whatever you can put an ACTN interface on top as NBI.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Daniele
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Lou Berger [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>> Sent: giovedì 17 settembre 2015 18:53
>>> To: Daniele Ceccarelli; TEAS WG;
>>> [e-mail]
>>> Subject: Re: [Teas] Poll on draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements-01 a WG 
>>> documents
>>>
>>> Daniele, Authors,
>>>
>>> To me (perhaps us) the VN controller name seemed to line up well 
>>> with the current text and was *broader* than ACTN, i.e., could cover 
>>> any TE control approach that doesn't use a fully distributed control plane.
>>>
>>> Perhaps answering the following will help inform the choice of name:
>>> - What about the requirements in the current draft is limited to 'ACTN'?
>>>
>>> - Do you have an alternate name that covers any TE control 
>>> architecture that doesn't use a fully distributed control plane?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Lou
>>>
>>> On 09/17/2015 11:05 AM, Daniele Ceccarelli wrote:
>>>> 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:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Lou Berger
>>>>> Sent: giovedì 17 settembre 2015 13:04
>>>>> To: TEAS WG; [e-mail]
>>>>> 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
>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Teas mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>> _______________________________________________
>> Teas mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>>
>
>


_______________________________________________
Teas mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
_______________________________________________
Teas mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas