Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll - draft-zhao-teas-pcecc-use-cases

[Quintin zhao <[e-mail]>]

Hello Adrian,

Thanks a lot for your support!

Regarding to the use cases currently documented in the drafts, they are based on the customer requirements we have collected so far. It is true at this stage of the draft, the use case list is not complete and also it is too early to decide which use case is more important than the others. We agree with you that as the draft progresses, the scope of the use cases and priorities might be clearer.

For your other comments,  they are really helpful to make the draft to be more precise and easy to read.  We will have a new revision based on your suggestions and all other comments we receive during this polling period and we will send it to you and TEAS working group the new version after the polling is closed.

See my other comments inline and thanks for your support again,

Quintin


From: Teas [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2017 10:10 AM
To: 'Vishnu Pavan Beeram'; [e-mail]
Cc: 'TEAS WG Chairs'
Subject: Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll - draft-zhao-teas-pcecc-use-cases

Hi Pavan,

Yes, I think we should have a document that builds on draft-ietf-teas-pce-central-control by expounding some use cases so that people can understand what they might want to build and what protocol work might be needed. We need to be careful to understand whether we are aiming for:
- a complete list of all possible use cases
- some of the major *potential* use cases
- a few wide-ranging examples
- those use cases that people are really keen to build and deploy.
Maybe it would be good to make that decision as part of adoption, and to flag it in the Abstract and Introduction as the purpose of the document.

A couple of points on this revision of the document...

Maybe the chairs will want to sort out the front page author list before adoption to save having the (painful) debate later.
[Quintin] We will work on this to make sure that the author list rule is followed once the draft is more mature.  It seems that for the requirements/use-case draft, it has more authors from the operator side comparing to the solution draft.

Why is this document positioned as Experimental? In view of draft-ietf-teas-pce-central-control it would seem that we have moved beyond an experiment.
[Quintin]  good point!  We would like to change this to the standard track if it is possible.

But, saying that, I am quite surprised to see no reference made to draft-ietf-teas-pce-central-control. In fact, that document makes nearly all of Section 1 redundant.
[Quintin] Will do that in the next version of the draft.

Section 3 is a surprise and, I think belongs in the PCE WG. But (maybe more to the point) this looks like a rather random set of protocol requirements driven by some of use cases, but in no way generic. For example, requirement 6 doesn't seem to be applicable to the use case in Section 10. My suggestion would be to completely remove Section 3, and not worry about it. Protocol requirements will follow obviously from the use cases as/when the PCE WG looks at any necessary protocol extensions.  (This especially in view of Section 14.)
[Quintin] We can either delete it as you suggested in the next version or leave it once the  protocol extension draft is more mature.

Compared with the other use cases, Section 4 seems very terse and does not really explain the use case.
[Quintin] Will update this section to make it easy to read.

I make no comment on which use cases I think are viable and which not. I suspect developers and (more important) operators need to discuss that.
[Quintin]  We will try to have more operators and developers to present the use cases in the mailing list and future IETF meetings.


Thanks,
Adrian


From: Teas [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Vishnu Pavan Beeram
Sent: 08 February 2017 11:06
To: [e-mail]
Cc: TEAS WG Chairs
Subject: [Teas] WG adoption poll - draft-zhao-teas-pcecc-use-cases

All,

This is start of a two week poll on making
draft-zhao-teas-pcecc-use-cases-02 a working group document. Please
send email to the list indicating "yes/support" or "no/do not
support". If indicating no, please state your 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.

Note: an IPR disclosure has been made on this document, see
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2940/

The poll ends February 22.

Thanks,
Pavan and Lou