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

["Zhangxian (Xian)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi, All, 

 I cannot agree more with what Daniele said: 

"I can´t imagine anything broader that Abstraction and Control of transport networks...it includes any type of control: centralized, distributed and hybrid (and spans from layer 0 to 2,5)."

 "VN controller", reads to me, narrower than what the draft is covering, which also includes control of multi-domain/multi-layer networks.

My 2cents,
Xian

-----Original Message-----
From: Teas [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Daniele Ceccarelli
Sent: 2015年9月18日 3:36
To: Lou Berger; TEAS WG; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Teas] Poll on draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements-01 a WG documents

Lou,

I can´t imagine anything broader that Abstraction and Control of transport networks...it includes any type of control: centralized, distributed and hybrid (and spans from layer 0 to 2,5).

> - What about the requirements in the current draft is limited to 'ACTN'?
Limited to the broadest concept? If we want to call it limited...

> - Do you have an alternate name that covers any TE control architecture that
> doesn't use a fully distributed control plane?
ACTN is ok. The PNC can be any "magic box" used to control the physical network: an SDN controller (with e.g. OF, NetConf, PCEP as SBI, a PCE that controls a GMPLS network, an NMS, whatever you can put an ACTN interface on top as NBI.

Thanks,
Daniele

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lou Berger [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: giovedì 17 settembre 2015 18:53
> To: Daniele Ceccarelli; TEAS WG; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Teas] Poll on draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements-01 a WG
> documents
> 
> 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
> >

_______________________________________________
Teas mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas