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

[Leeyoung <[e-mail]>]

Igor,

Good point. I express the support of this idea. You explained very well. 

Thanks.
Young

-----Original Message-----
From: Igor Bryskin [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 8:04 AM
To: Daniele Ceccarelli; Lou Berger; Doolan, Paul (Coriant - US/Irving)
Cc: [e-mail]; TEAS WG
Subject: RE: [Teas] Poll on draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements-01 a WG documents

Daniele,

I think you've come with a good compromise. I believe that the notion "Traffic Engineered network" is wider than the notion "Transport network". IMO every transport network requires some sort of traffic engineering, while a traffic engineered network is not necessarily transport network. For example, MPLS/SPRING network could be traffic engineered while is not, generally speaking, transport network. So, Abstraction and Control of Traffic Engineered Networks (ACTN or ACTEN) seems as broad as it gets, and IMO is in full agreement with TE interconnect work.
So, I suggest we agree on this name and move on. Arguments about names seem innocuous, but we have unfortunate precedents when such arguments held us for years (recall UNI vs.ENNI, vs.XNI, etc.)

Regards,
Igor


-----Original Message-----
From: Teas [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Daniele Ceccarelli
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 3:23 AM
To: Lou Berger <[e-mail]>; Doolan, Paul (Coriant - US/Irving) <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; TEAS WG <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Poll on draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements-01 a WG documents

Lou,

Is your concern mostly related to the "transport" word? In the last years the concept of transport evolved pretty much, mostly with transport SDN and it is no longer tied to the L0-L1 but it covers whatever mean used to transport IP. Young already pointed out what the draft aims to cover.

If you're so strongly willing to change the name we could turn "Transport" into TE so that it becomes Abstraction and Control of TE networks. (this is my personal proposal, not shared by the other ACTNers)...and ACTN remains, but with the "broader" scope and it is "more" complementary to the interconnected TE.
The change of the file name is not just the change of a file name. 

Daniele

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lou Berger [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: venerdì 18 settembre 2015 02:51
> To: Doolan, Paul (Coriant - US/Irving)
> Cc: TEAS WG; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Teas] Poll on draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements-01 a WG 
> documents
> 
> 
> Paul,
> 
> On 9/17/2015 4:28 PM, Doolan, Paul (Coriant - US/Irving) wrote:
> > Hello Lou and Pavan,
> >
> > this instruction to change ACTN to VN-Controller seems a little high
> handed.
> 
> I/we hear you. But...
> 
> > Young Lee, Danielle and their co-authors have spent a long time 
> > working
> on this and creating mind share and name recognition for ACTN. I know 
> what it stands for as do audiences around the world to whom the team 
> have introduced the idea and from whom they have garnered support.
> 
> That's fair, but from our perspective the IETF has been working TE a 
> lot longer than the term ACTN has been around, and that is the context 
> where this work fits.
> 
> As I stated at the last meeting, it's my (not to speak for Pavan, but 
> think he agrees too)  option that this work is complimentary to the 
> interconnected-te particularly as it is more focused on the
> controller/non-fully distributed control plane approaches.   We think
> that covering such controller based TE models as very important and 
> fills an important gap in the TE architecture.
> 
> Right now, we (the WG) are just at the requirements stage and those 
> requirements apply quite broadly and that is what we (the chairs) want 
> to make clear by the name change.
> 
> > In contrast I have absolutely no idea what a vn-controller 
> > requirements draft might be about and,
> 
> > if you persist with this renaming, it clearly makes no sense to make 
> > 'no
> other changes to the draft' since, at the very least, the (new) title 
> needs explanation.
> 
> It's just a filename.  That said, we (chairs) are trying to project 
> where the work will end up based on the WG consensus process.  Chairs 
> have changed names in the past and been right and sometimes wrong, but 
> in the end we have an RFC published with the title that represents WG 
> consensus and an RFC number.
> 
> > I really think the draft should be adopted as (originally) named. If 
> > you want
> to change the name then coming back to the WG with a clearly 
> articulated rationale and asking for its support would seem to me to 
> be a more inclusive way to do things.
> 
> It's not unusual for chairs to change names of a draft at adoption.
> Normally it goes without comment.  Perhaps if this wasn't the first 'actn'
> document it would have.
> 
> Again, we're open to alternatives that capture the scope of the work.
> 
> Lou
> 
> > my 10cents,
> > pd
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sep 17, 2015, at 7:04 AM, Lou Berger wrote:
> >
> >> 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