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

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

Daniele,
    A lot of my reservation with the current title is with 'Transport
Networks' part.  Back pre-WG reorg, ccamp really was only concerned with
Transport networks.  Now with TEAS, our scope has been extended to any
TE network, including MPLS-TE.  So I think we need to broaden the scope
to all TE, not just Transport Networks.

A secondary point is that purely distributed control plane solutions
also provide 'Abstract Control'.  Consider VNTs covered in the
interconnected-te draft.  So I think we need to distinguish this work
here too.

I'm certainly not wedded to vn-controller-requirements, but I think
think the above concerns have to be covered.  BTW I did reread the
document to see if the comment really extended to the meat of the text. 
But thankfully the ACTN term isn't core to the document.

Thanks,
Lou


On 9/17/2015 3:35 PM, Daniele Ceccarelli wrote:
> 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
>