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

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

Young,

Daniele closed his slides by talking about overall status.  So the
comments were both about the document and more general.  I listened to
the (painful) audio and added a few more notes:
see
http://etherpad.tools.ietf.org:9000/p/notes-ietf-93-teas?useMonospaceFont=true

also perhaps you can answer the following:

- What about the requirements in the current draft is limited to 'ACTN'?

or said another way:

- Abstraction and Control are both things supported by today's
standards, so what's new from the
requirements perspective?

Thanks,
Lou
On 9/18/2015 12:47 PM, Leeyoung wrote:
> Hi Lou,
>
> Actually this is meeting minutes on the ACTN Framework draft presentation and we agreed to include some gap analysis of some type. 
> We will come up with that topic in the upcoming revision on this. I thought you are going to poll the framework draft soon. 
>
> In regards to the requirements draft, what Paul is quoting is correct and the current requirement draft incorporated your comments on impact on YANG and others. 
>
> Thanks.
> Young
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lou Berger [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 11:36 AM
> To: Doolan, Paul (Coriant - US/Irving)
> Cc: Varma, Eve L (Eve); Daniele Ceccarelli; Vishnu Pavan Beeram; [e-mail]; TEAS WG
> Subject: Re: [Teas] Poll on draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements-01 a WG documents
>
> Paul,
>
> On 9/18/2015 11:33 AM, Doolan, Paul (Coriant - US/Irving) wrote:
>> Hi Lou,
>>
>>> The comments were made in Pargue (publicly
>> So that we're all on the same page (Eve wasn't at the Prague meeting), what you are recorded in the minutes as having said with respect to draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements-01 is:
>>
>> Lou Berger: A good start on requirements, and notable section on impact
>>           on YANG but this section needs further development. I would also like
>>           to see more discussion on future requirements. For adoption, I think we
>>           need to polish the aforementioned sections.
> Also stated as related to this draft and the framework : 
>
>          Lou Berger: Understanding what the protocol extension requirements are
>           would be very helpful. The interconnected-te document went through a
>           similar process. Please look to focus your document in the context of
>           technologies that we have available, and its ok to have "this piece
>           is missing".
>           Daniele: Is it ok to keep that discussion (gap analysis) in this document?
>           Lou Berger: Yes
>           Young Lee: The document was intended to be used as a framework with
>           functional components. Is it ok?
>           Lou Berger: Yes, this is a complimentary to the interconnected-te
>           document. Please authors, consider the previous comment and see if you
>           can update the document.
>
> The minutes actually are  unfortunately a bit sparse (and the recording
> of the chairs mic is really poor) and I did mention that this would come
> up in the context of adoption.  Particularly missing was the discussion
> on the work being an addition/complement to existing work by covering
> "logically centralized" TE solutions.   Both Daniele and Young seems to
> agree with these points. 
>
> If anyone feels up to listening to the minutes and updating the minutes
> that would be great.
>
> Audio is at
> https://www.ietf.org/audio/ietf93/ietf93-congresshalli-20150722-1300.mp3
> and edits can be made to
> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/teas/minutes?item=minutes-93-teas.html and we
> can get the official minutes corrected from there.
>
>
>> Which is fine by me but does IMO qualify as advance warning of your current position. No "oh and by the way change the title" for example.
> The title isn't being change, the file name is. 
>
> Lou
>
>> pd
>>
>> On Sep 18, 2015, at 10:55 AM, Lou Berger wrote:
>>
>>> On 09/18/2015 08:56 AM, Varma, Eve L (Eve) wrote:
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I must agree with Daniele's points.   In reviewing the inputs re
>>>> draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements becoming a WG document, which resulted
>>>> in its adoption as such, I don't recall any inputs other than "Support";
>>>> I didn't see "Support, but clarify.." or "Support, but change.."  Given
>>>> this, I am truly surprised at the discussion that has now arisen.
>>> Eve,
>>>
>>> See my last message.  The comments were made in Pargue (publicly and
>>> expanded upon privately), and I had a discussion with the Authors via
>>> e-mail during the adoption period  -- in this brief e-mail exchange I
>>> indicated that I decided to not impede adoption as I believe the current
>>> contents of the document is a great starting point for the WG.
>>>
>>> I specifically didn't want the discussion on what is basically how the
>>> "ACTN" *solution* fits in with the rest of IETF TE to impede the
>>> adoption of what is essentially a generic TE requirements document.
>>>
>>>> While I have no real issue in changing Transport to TE in the document
>>>> title to move this forward, though I don't see the issue with using the
>>>> term Transport (which hasn't been considered solely L0/L1 for a long
>>>> time), I hope that the authors would be able to move forward quickly to
>>>> publish as a WG draft with essentially the same title.
>>> Changing the title is not yet on the table and would not occur in the
>>> -00 rev of the document.
>>>
>>> Lou
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bes regards,
>>>>
>>>> Eve
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:*Teas [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Daniele Ceccarelli
>>>> *Sent:* Friday, September 18, 2015 8:38 AM
>>>> *To:* Vishnu Pavan Beeram
>>>> *Cc:* Doolan, Paul (Coriant - US/Irving); Lou Berger;
>>>> [e-mail]; TEAS WG
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Teas] Poll on draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements-01 a WG
>>>> documents
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Pavan,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please see inline.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> BR
>>>> Daniele
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:*Vishnu Pavan Beeram [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>> *Sent:* venerdì 18 settembre 2015 14:05
>>>> *To:* Daniele Ceccarelli
>>>> *Cc:* Lou Berger; Doolan, Paul (Coriant - US/Irving);
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>; TEAS WG
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Teas] Poll on draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements-01 a WG
>>>> documents
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A few points to mull over and move the discussion along:
>>>>
>>>> - Fitting "ACTN" into the "TEAS" body of work:
>>>> Work focusing on "how TE networks can be abstracted and managed in a
>>>> controller(s) driven environment" is an obvious item of interest to the
>>>> WG. And this is primarily where we believe the "ACTN" work can
>>>> contribute; the requirements discussed in the document that just got
>>>> adopted by the WG aligns well with this. The intent behind the
>>>> name-change was to have something generic enough to capture what we want
>>>> this work to be about. Note that this is just a requirements document
>>>> and since this is the first document to be adopted in this realm, it is
>>>> important to get the "naming" right now rather than later. "VN
>>>> Controller" is perhaps not a great choice -- very much open to other
>>>> choices that would capture the essence of the first statement above.
>>>>
>>>> */[DanCe] The IETF is contribution driven. If the WG contributed a draft
>>>> related to a subset of what the chairs expect, it means that there is
>>>> interest just in that subset. If the chairs wanted something generic
>>>> enough they should have asked for a document generic enough (before the
>>>> wg adoption), not call for the adoption of a document and then ask to
>>>> change its scope. The authors are interested in writing ACTN
>>>> requirements, which not only is a subset of what the chairs ask for but
>>>> is also slightly different since we're not speaking just about nodes and
>>>> links. /*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - Complementing existing TEAS work:
>>>> <draft-ietf-teas-interconnected-te-info-exchange> discusses the
>>>> architecture for the exchange of TE information between interconnected
>>>> TE networks in support of end-to-end TE path establishment. It discusses
>>>> in great detail the notion of "abstraction in TE networks". Our sincere
>>>> hope (belief rather) is that the <actn-requirements> document (and other
>>>> <actn> related documents that get adopted by the WG) would be
>>>> complementary to (/consistent with) the
>>>> <interconnected-te-info-exchange> draft.
>>>>
>>>> */[DanCe] What does complementary mean? Complementary in the sense that
>>>> interconnected TE is for multi-domain LSP establishment in distributed
>>>> control plane and ACTN does the same for centralized one? ACTN has a
>>>> broader scope. The multi domain and multi layer part can be seen as
>>>> complimentary, but again ACTN is not just nodes and links, it includes
>>>> services, VNF, network slices and so on./*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - Focus on the term "Controller":
>>>> One train of thought is to use this new work (conveniently facilitated
>>>> by the induction of ACTN into TEAS) to focus solely on the "controller"
>>>> aspects (given the belief that non-controller aspects are adequately
>>>> covered by existing solutions). Personally, I don't have a strong
>>>> preference on whether the "naming" should reflect this or not
>>>> (Danielle's latest suggestion - use "TE" in the ACTN acronym - is pretty
>>>> close to what I personally would like it to be), but it is important to
>>>> get some clarity on this "scoping" detail before zeroing in on any "name".
>>>>
>>>> */[DanCe] The scoping should have been made clear before the call for
>>>> adoption. The authors scoped the draft as X and asked for the adoption
>>>> of X and now they are requested to publish the draft as a starting point
>>>> for Y. In 2 years we have put together use cases, an architecture and
>>>> would have liked to start working on solutions for that, we'd like not
>>>> to start from the beginning again. Please note the list of ACTN related
>>>> drafts in TEAS (not to consider the expired ones still submitted as
>>>> draft-xxxxx-actn.)/*
>>>>
>>>> */ /*
>>>>
>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/images/search-small.gif
>>>> <https://www.google.com/search?as_q=%22draft-klee-teas-actn-connectivity-multi-domain-02%22&as_sitesearch=mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas/>
>>>>
>>>> 	
>>>>
>>>> draft-klee-teas-actn-connectivity-multi-domain
>>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-klee-teas-actn-connectivity-multi-domain-02.txt>
>>>>
>>>> 	
>>>>
>>>> -02
>>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-klee-teas-actn-connectivity-multi-domain-02.txt>
>>>>
>>>> 			
>>>>
>>>> 2015-06-08  
>>>>
>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/images/search-small.gif
>>>> <https://www.google.com/search?as_q=%22draft-kumaki-teas-actn-multitenant-vno-00%22&as_sitesearch=mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas/>
>>>>
>>>> 	
>>>>
>>>> draft-kumaki-teas-actn-multitenant-vno
>>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-kumaki-teas-actn-multitenant-vno-00.txt>
>>>>
>>>> 	
>>>>
>>>> -00
>>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kumaki-teas-actn-multitenant-vno-00.txt>
>>>>
>>>> 			
>>>>
>>>> 2015-07-06  
>>>>
>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/images/search-small.gif
>>>> <https://www.google.com/search?as_q=%22draft-lam-teas-usage-info-model-net-topology-01%22&as_sitesearch=mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas/>
>>>>
>>>> 	
>>>>
>>>> draft-lam-teas-usage-info-model-net-topology
>>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-lam-teas-usage-info-model-net-topology-01.txt>
>>>>
>>>> 	
>>>>
>>>> -01
>>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lam-teas-usage-info-model-net-topology-01.txt>
>>>>
>>>> 			
>>>>
>>>> 2015-07-03  
>>>>
>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/images/search-small.gif
>>>> <https://www.google.com/search?as_q=%22draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements-01%22&as_sitesearch=mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas/>
>>>>
>>>> 	
>>>>
>>>> draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements
>>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements-01.txt>
>>>>
>>>> 	
>>>>
>>>> -01 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements-01.txt>
>>>>
>>>> 			
>>>>
>>>> 2015-07-27  
>>>>
>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/images/search-small.gif
>>>> <https://www.google.com/search?as_q=%22draft-leebelotti-teas-actn-info-00%22&as_sitesearch=mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas/>
>>>>
>>>> 	
>>>>
>>>> draft-leebelotti-teas-actn-info
>>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-leebelotti-teas-actn-info-00.txt>
>>>>
>>>> 	
>>>>
>>>> -00 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-leebelotti-teas-actn-info-00.txt>
>>>>
>>>> 			
>>>>
>>>> 2015-07-02  
>>>>
>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/images/search-small.gif
>>>> <https://www.google.com/search?as_q=%22draft-leeking-teas-actn-problem-statement-00%22&as_sitesearch=mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas/>
>>>>
>>>> 	
>>>>
>>>> draft-leeking-teas-actn-problem-statement
>>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-leeking-teas-actn-problem-statement-00.txt>
>>>>
>>>> 	
>>>>
>>>> -00
>>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-leeking-teas-actn-problem-statement-00.txt>
>>>>
>>>> 			
>>>>
>>>> 2015-06-09 
>>>>
>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/images/search-small.gif
>>>> <https://www.google.com/search?as_q=%22draft-suzuki-teas-actn-multidomain-opc-00%22&as_sitesearch=mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas/>
>>>>
>>>> 	
>>>>
>>>> draft-suzuki-teas-actn-multidomain-opc
>>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-suzuki-teas-actn-multidomain-opc-00.txt>
>>>>
>>>> 	
>>>>
>>>> -00
>>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-suzuki-teas-actn-multidomain-opc-00.txt>
>>>>
>>>> 			
>>>>
>>>> 2015-07-06  
>>>>
>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/images/search-small.gif
>>>> <https://www.google.com/search?as_q=%22draft-xu-teas-actn-abstract-alarm-report-00%22&as_sitesearch=mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas/>
>>>>
>>>> 	
>>>>
>>>> draft-xu-teas-actn-abstract-alarm-report
>>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-xu-teas-actn-abstract-alarm-report-00.txt>
>>>>
>>>> 	
>>>>
>>>> -00
>>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-teas-actn-abstract-alarm-report-00.txt>
>>>>
>>>> 			
>>>>
>>>> 2015-07-06
>>>>
>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/images/search-small.gif
>>>> <https://www.google.com/search?as_q=%22draft-ceccarelli-teas-actn-framework-00%22&as_sitesearch=mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas/>
>>>>
>>>> 	
>>>>
>>>> draft-ceccarelli-teas-actn-framework
>>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ceccarelli-teas-actn-framework-00.txt>
>>>>
>>>> 	
>>>>
>>>> -00 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ceccarelli-teas-actn-framework-00.txt>
>>>>
>>>> 			
>>>>
>>>> 2015-06-15  
>>>>
>>>> */ /*
>>>>
>>>> */ /*
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> -Pavan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 3:22 AM, Daniele Ceccarelli
>>>> <[e-mail]
>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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] <mailto:[e-mail]>]
>>>>> Sent: venerdì 18 settembre 2015 02:51
>>>>> To: Doolan, Paul (Coriant - US/Irving)
>>>>> Cc: TEAS WG; [e-mail]
>>>> <mailto:[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] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Teas mailing list
>>>>>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Teas mailing list
>>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
>