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

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

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
>