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

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

Let's try again.  I thought I was perfectly clear, but I guess not.

The filename of the -00 version is subject to the results of the
discussion. 

Is this clear?

Lou


On 9/22/2015 12:01 PM, Varma, Eve L (Eve) wrote:
> Hi Lou,
>
> OK - so the authors should go ahead and publish draft-teas-actn-requirements-00 and then start working on the content changes for 01.  Thanks for answering my procedural question.
>
> Best regards,
> Eve
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lou Berger [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 11:59 AM
> To: Varma, Eve L (Eve); Daniele Ceccarelli; Leeyoung; [e-mail]
> Cc: Vishnu Pavan Beeram; TEAS WG
> Subject: Re: [Teas] 答复: Poll on draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements-01 a WG documents
>
> Eve,
>     Let's try to  focus on the getting the questions answered, with the understanding that content changes go into -01. -00  will be the text currently published.
>
> As stated below:
>> The basic question is how does ACTN fit into the TEAS WG. 
> and more specifically, and for inclusion in -01:
>
>> 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.
>
> Thanks,
> Lou
>
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>