[Teas] Informational documents - how many do we need?

"BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <db3546@att.com> Mon, 31 August 2020 19:25 UTC

Return-Path: <db3546@att.com>
X-Original-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D4943A18F9; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 12:25:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m-um9KcUSYO5; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 12:25:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00191d01.pphosted.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A22413A18F2; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 12:25:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0083689.ppops.net []) by m0083689.ppops.net-00191d01. ( with SMTP id 07VJLvDC001971; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 15:25:37 -0400
Received: from alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (sbcsmtp6.sbc.com []) by m0083689.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 337u89vphp-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 31 Aug 2020 15:25:37 -0400
Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost []) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id 07VJPaNw006102; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 15:25:37 -0400
Received: from zlp30485.vci.att.com (zlp30485.vci.att.com []) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id 07VJPWxK006011 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 31 Aug 2020 15:25:32 -0400
Received: from zlp30485.vci.att.com (zlp30485.vci.att.com []) by zlp30485.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id 4168F400B57A; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 19:25:32 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from GAALPA1MSGEX1DC.ITServices.sbc.com (unknown []) by zlp30485.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTPS id 2C3EF400B577; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 19:25:32 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from GAALPA1MSGEX1DE.ITServices.sbc.com ( by GAALPA1MSGEX1DC.ITServices.sbc.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2044.4; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 15:25:30 -0400
Received: from GAALPA1MSGEX1DE.ITServices.sbc.com ([]) by GAALPA1MSGEX1DE.ITServices.sbc.com ([]) with mapi id 15.01.2044.004; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 15:25:30 -0400
From: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <db3546@att.com>
To: TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>
CC: "teas-chairs@ietf.org" <teas-chairs@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Informational documents - how many do we need?
Thread-Index: AdZ/xlIRM92w7qdDT9GEI8S6RkVkwg==
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2020 19:25:30 +0000
Message-ID: <05121c09b43f4ce39ad9630d291e7fbf@att.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
x-tm-snts-smtp: D94B6400F15D573BFFA1CFF76A96546ABF34D73F2BDCA2A8C1319831D50D85132
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_05121c09b43f4ce39ad9630d291e7fbfattcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.235, 18.0.687 definitions=2020-08-31_09:2020-08-31, 2020-08-31 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 phishscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 bulkscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 priorityscore=1501 adultscore=0 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 spamscore=0 impostorscore=0 clxscore=1015 mlxscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2006250000 definitions=main-2008310113
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/U9yEKHxT8PGeuR0MelRN1nnhSXs>
Subject: [Teas] Informational documents - how many do we need?
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <teas.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas/>
List-Post: <mailto:teas@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2020 19:25:40 -0000


On Lou's:

" -- after all how many information documents do we really need on this topic...."

I wanted to remind everyone on this IESG statement:


It discusses problem statements, use cases and requirements documents as often delaying solution work. The guidance is to consider alternative mechanisms instead of publishing as an RFC. In recent charters, there are clear statements on not publishing (e.g. RAW).

One approach is to include such material as an appendix in solution documents. Or combined for one comprehensive informational document.

On draft-nsdt-teas-transport-slice-definition, TEAS has not updated their milestones, so I'm not sure the intention. I have not seen any group publish a stand-alone definition document. Definitions are usually in a framework document.

My recommendation is if this document is adopted, it should be used as a "scratch pad" for the discussion, but then combined with the framework document and other documents (e.g. Information model/contereras-teas-slice-nbi). Most important, do not let these informational documents delay solution work.


(speaking as AD)