Re: [Teas] Proposed charter update

"Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com> Tue, 09 October 2018 19:02 UTC

Return-Path: <agmalis@gmail.com>
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 070A112F18C; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 12:02:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 LueqDhHSpB63; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 12:02:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x829.google.com (mail-qt1-x829.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::829]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE71A12F295; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 12:02:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x829.google.com with SMTP id d8-v6so2879292qtk.13; Tue, 09 Oct 2018 12:02:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=H2ViKTfFSIB+lJ429ltXE9bDJUNAZih0NpmpPkU4dQA=; b=GVkCg/sGl8uSUGbPyq+kkZOOYBA4IR2PiDZUoLImGMyWjlLGO8RLiAZNB+x/+0clBA sq18D0U/z8bHqFzR34VlGRx86Dt79EqGhAq1MGUC0lnJpkKYJjpsyHowuOZGm8J6rAvo KrjN52cKpGZaUNhlpBjD7juNMfEdPfz1Va37Fcy4T4gMy1BBndNh8fWZWSJlFIVkkfXZ 0AdQcItSGVbnkqFtCZiuofUcgLxuJMWa9oCSw53trt0k/UgSOROlqjpumMrkgNTfzrzs SVg/ssN7uxZKalkC7NpACrWeOLHaQwRwDpTygm4iUla5ZXvNfLVG1Q1UMF/nwSDyvohs ap1g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=H2ViKTfFSIB+lJ429ltXE9bDJUNAZih0NpmpPkU4dQA=; b=PgYeT0f6DQrIan95BmLfPVSf3BI5QEte5xohU1Sfy9TziNcWx5fZYKmkL3NA+k+tt0 Vs5BM83BhCFysJunSw1+qrI9gaEWWKDjZO2C5heh0rVUrQI48a/IqVl5IJ1R61J4wCro JbVmZBJH8Gfx1qGZ+g0VaVDmUs+DIlCJwyftz4blOjWEvssZ+pN8z/5G5Y+YFvv145U1 //5aHJkc9jnSet0AV213EXpPnj/N6Is6NnPAwZPujHqg7wRCLFYSs2FQf/g8Rs+ldMij EpebFEenkDK7lRpVFITnCaPW5QeP4S1XeX+9COH7QNU72/xJgwJBRZR7Scn0b2R4Jgc+ Bagg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfojC57SIIhYVKQdkRwgpTJUct1asEQActpBL1YChbEtzwzr5gk0g O3pxU2aCiqWSBVCSorvYlroDHqhN4ERf1nA7KUg+6A==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV60o1CSNaMO8GtjyJRaFb3SQKvpRNosVhIr/pO9d9ew/UcXUp2Ac4Q/Ravbmg9JdLPfiwhxG2jBsndKOotKwTbQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:bd1e:: with SMTP id m30-v6mr24247827qvg.234.1539111740950; Tue, 09 Oct 2018 12:02:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CA+YzgTsRGs8tyn4d8jykTLtUNJ=bTXrsG5N+bDpu99mAUufx5g@mail.gmail.com> <CAA=duU0QkbtECihN14kRyv=c9-GJ-i+Mt9T_YhfAkcVJ73uDQQ@mail.gmail.com> <ea7f7827-754f-cb24-e2a0-1d081c9f6dc4@labn.net>
In-Reply-To: <ea7f7827-754f-cb24-e2a0-1d081c9f6dc4@labn.net>
From: "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 15:02:09 -0400
Message-ID: <CAA=duU1-Rcwu-FrwqoaS4uf=hvXv8tEuFoMUCd9BW-V-=ZAYoQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Cc: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com>, TEAS WG Chairs <teas-chairs@ietf.org>, teas@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000096cff50577d06025"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/DxvCekpdSL2pRmsXO2jeImHH3kE>
Subject: Re: [Teas] 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: Tue, 09 Oct 2018 19:02:46 -0000

Lou,

Both look great, thanks!

Cheers,
Andy


On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 12:49 PM Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>; wrote:

>
> Hi Andy,
>
> On 10/9/2018 9:53 AM, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
> > Pavan and Lou,
> >
> > The proposed update looks good, especially with the inclusion of
> > DetNet. However, support for DetNet should be more general than just
> > support for "use cases", which could be interpreted to be limited to
> > those in the forthcoming DetNet Use Cases RFC. Rather, how about:
> >
> well it says "use cases" not "Use Cases", but...
> >  - With the DetNet WG on mechanisms (YANG models and protocols) to
> > support the DetNet architecture and forwarding plane.
> How about:
> - With the DetNet WG on mechanisms (YANG models and protocols) to
> support DetNets
>
> >
> > Also, something else occurs to me that is somewhat more speculative
> > and may actually not fit, but I'll mention it anyway. While SFC
> > doesn't require traffic engineering in terms of bandwidth guarantees,
> > it does require the ability to establish constrained (policy-based)
> > paths in terms of the ordering of nodes for a particular flow or
> > chain, and TEAS certainly has a lot of experience with signaling
> > protocols to establish constrained paths. So perhaps there's some
> > coordination with the SFC WG that may make sense there. Just a thought.
>
> Fair enough, how about:
> - With the SFC WG on mechanisms (YANG models and protocols) to support SFCs
>
> Lou
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Andy
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 2:49 AM Vishnu Pavan Beeram
> > <vishnupavan@gmail.com <mailto:vishnupavan@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     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,
> >
> >     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.
> >
> >      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.
> >
> >        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.
> >
> >        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.
> >
> >       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.
> >
> >        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 <mailto:Teas@ietf.org>
> >     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Teas mailing list
> > Teas@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>
>