Re: [Teas] Last Call: <draft-ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios-08.txt> (Scenarios and Simulation Results of PCE in Native IP Network) to Informational RFC

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Sat, 28 September 2019 15:39 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.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 77254120047; Sat, 28 Sep 2019 08:39:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.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 zp0hLht-GOn3; Sat, 28 Sep 2019 08:39:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.elandsys.com (mx.elandsys.com [162.213.2.210]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1D6412003E; Sat, 28 Sep 2019 08:39:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.115.155.140]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id x8SFdSRb004037 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 28 Sep 2019 08:39:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1569685188; x=1569771588; i=@elandsys.com; bh=UkdRrkORlnrdZz7Ns+2P/OIrah9zfBgJfoOYjqtMVXM=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=Stx3ylSIa7XJlrgK+jFoyfgI3vQnV2XuzY3dN1Lyl8Bep2OD6naEDE1mjB6v6mK8A MEbM/An5BqoQZCrsn6pN/osHzIAixnEIPpPWL7r3v5yciHyqoI/9BmI8OF4VoRiKOp X32wGnQnH9wVLdg2W1LTik3wgHUue/Kjkut0K+j4=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20190928074204.0be1c6b0@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2019 08:38:52 -0700
To: Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>, teas@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Cc: teas@ietf.org, teas-chairs@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <556B5AC9-3EE6-4528-BAFE-3ECBE52FB118@tsinghua.org.cn>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20190928043919.0e4ada60@elandnews.com> <556B5AC9-3EE6-4528-BAFE-3ECBE52FB118@tsinghua.org.cn>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/JbsFHAXkfakDEIDs7YDjK00ByX4>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Last Call: <draft-ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios-08.txt> (Scenarios and Simulation Results of PCE in Native IP Network) to Informational RFC
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: Sat, 28 Sep 2019 15:39:50 -0000

Hi Aijun,
At 06:02 AM 28-09-2019, Aijun Wang wrote:
>2. Specification of terminology, architecture, and protocol
>requirements for abstraction and distribution of TE
>information between interconnected TE domains/layers.
>
>And, would you like to give other comments for the document? We just 
>want to provide some useful information for the community. The 
>community is composited of members from operators, vendors and researchers.

There is a sentence in the Abstract about "requirements".  The 
Introduction Section, specifically the last paragraph, states that 
the draft is about scenarios.  There isn't any mention of 
requirements.  My understanding of requirement is that it is about a 
thing which is compulsory.  I could not find anything in the draft 
which states that
Centralized Control Dynamic Routing in a native IP network is compulsory.

If it wasn't for our email exchange, I would not known about the 
algorithm.  I do not disagree with you on whether you want to provide 
some useful information for the community.  Is there useful 
information in the draft which is intended to be published?

Is there a vendor, excluding any one which has some affiliation with 
the draft, which has expressed interest in this work?  Are there 
operators, unaffiliated with the affiliations listed in the draft, 
who have expressed an interest in this work?

>The draft just gives the scenarios that the operator encounters in 
>real situations. Shouldn't we design the technologies/solution 
>towards the application's requirements?

In the above, "scenarios" is mentioned once again.  The question 
which follows is not about "scenarios"; it is about requirements.  I 
would say yes to the question.  However, that does not change the 
fact that the draft is described as being about scenarios and that is 
not mentioned in the WG Charter.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy