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

[Vishnu Pavan Beeram <[e-mail]>]

>
> So can you kindly explain why we should put the text  “justifies using
> "ACTN" to characterize the set of requirements that have been put forth”
> when the draft has been created exactly to collect requirements for ACTN ?
>
Since this is the first document under the "ACTN umbrella" to be adopted by
the WG, I think it is fair to expect a definition for "ACTN" to be present
in this document and to expect it to be debated thoroughly. I don't
understand the reluctance to come up with a definition or point to an
existing definition.

Regards,
-Pavan





>
>

>
>
>
> *From:* Vishnu Pavan Beeram [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* martedì 22 settembre 2015 19:20
> *To:* Lou Berger
> *Cc:* Varma, Eve L (Eve); Daniele Ceccarelli; Leeyoung;
> [e-mail]; TEAS WG
> *Subject:* Re: [Teas] 答复: Poll on draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements-01 a
> WG documents
>
>
>
>
>
> > Could someone (individually or collectively) provide a definition of
> ACTN that would be suitable for inclusion in a -01 of the WG requirements
> document on the topic?
>
> Any input on this would be much appreciated.
>
>
>
> I thought the proposal texts from Igor and Xian were pretty good for a
> start. Can the authors please build on this and put together some text that
> succinctly defines ACTN (text that, hopefully, justifies using "ACTN" to
> characterize the set of requirements that have been put forth)? Given all
> the work that has gone into this (and all the documents that have been put
> together so far) over the past couple of years, I would like to think that
> this wouldn't take too long.
>
> Regards,
>
> -Pavan
>
>
>
>
> On 9/22/2015 11:39 AM, Varma, Eve L (Eve) wrote:
> > Hi Lou,
> >
> > Adding a definition seems a reasonable thing to do, considering all the
> discussion that's taken place.  From a procedure perspective, I assume the
> authors should first publish draft-teas-actn-requirements-00 as a WG draft
> without any changes to the content, and thereafter proceed from there to
> change “Transport” to “TE” within the draft and add a definition?
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Eve
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Lou Berger [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 10:31 PM
> > To: Daniele Ceccarelli; Leeyoung;
> [e-mail]
> > Cc: Varma, Eve L (Eve); Vishnu Pavan Beeram; TEAS WG
> > Subject: Re: [Teas] 答复: Poll on draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements-01 a
> WG documents
> >
> > Daniele, ACTN authors, All,
> >
> > On 9/21/2015 8:44 AM, Daniele Ceccarelli wrote:
> >> ...
> >> Looking forward to progress a fruitful thread and publishing the WG
> draft so work can progress.
> >>
> > Okay, let's take a step back here.
> >
> > The basic question is how does ACTN fit into the TEAS WG.
> >
> > Based on the discussions to date in the context of the WG, we thought we
> understood where we were going WRT ACTN, but perhaps not.  We also clearly
> expected to answer this in greater detail  as the WG  moved towards "ACTN"
> solutions.
> >
> > As has been pointed out earlier in the thread, having the first document
> on a topic without any definition of the topic is a bit awkward.  So
> perhaps now would be a good time to provide a definition of ACTN that can
> be added to the requirements document.
> >
> > Could someone (individually or collectively) provide a definition of
> ACTN that would be suitable for inclusion in a -01 of the WG requirements
> document on the topic?
> >
> > Also as mentioned before, it may be helpful to look at the MPLS-TP
> requirements document, RFC 5654, which provides an example of such a
> definition.
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Lou
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>