Re: [Teas] Raw notes from TEAS session

The next step is for me and Pavan to review/okay then poll the WG for
input..

On 11/17/2015 2:08 PM, Matt Hartley (mhartley) wrote:
>> Thank you! So you think this is ready for review and distribution, right?
> As far as I'm concerned, yes. Although given that I made quite a few changes, would it be worth giving the WG a day or two to comment if they want to?
>
> Cheers
>
> Matt
>
>> On 11/17/2015 1:44 PM, Matt Hartley (mhartley) wrote:
>>> All,
>>>
>>> I've gone over the audio and made some markups to the etherpad based on
>> that. We have one person who commented on the last presentation (Mach's
>> rfc5316bis draft) who remains anonymous at this point.
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Matt
>>>
>>>> All,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks to we have Jon Hardwick, Haomian Zheng and other anonymous
>>>> note takers to thank for the enclosed  raw notes from today.  These
>>>> notes are also available, and editable, via the URL:
>>>>         http://etherpad.tools.ietf.org:9000/p/notes-ietf-94-teas
>>>>
>>>> Please review and feel free to add your corrections via the link above.
>>>> Changes/notes will be reviewed and approved by the chairs (and WG)
>>>> before being finalized.  Please limit changes to what actually
>>>> transpired in the meeting.  Session audio is available at
>>>> http://www.ietf.org/audio/ietf94/ietf94-room301-20151104-0900.mp3
>>>>
>>>> If you have a question or want to discuss any topics raised in the
>>>> session, please feel free to do so on the list, but please do so with
>>>> an appropriate Subject line.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you!
>>>> Lou and Pavan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  IETF 94 - TEAS Agenda
>>>>>           TEAS Agenda For IETF 94
>>>>>           Version: Nov 03, 2015
>>>>>
>>>>>           Thursday, November 5th, 2015
>>>>>           0900 - 11:30 - Thursday Morning Session I
>>>>>           Room: 301
>>>>> Presentation     Start Time   Duration   Information
>>>>> 0       9:00   5   Title:   Administrivia & WG Status
>>>>>         Draft:
>>>>>         Presenter:   Chairs
>>>>> 1       9:05   5   Title:   WG Draft updates
>>>>>         Draft:   Many
>>>>>         Presenter:   Chairs
>>>> 2 drafts in RFC Ed Q
>>>> 2 drafts with IESG
>>>> 1 draft in WGLC
>>>> 4 liaisons
>>>> BBF liaison requires response by 8 Nov; detailed review required.
>>>> CCAMP is coordinating the response.
>>>>
>>>> The working groups is reminded to use the mailing list to discuss
>>>> issues, not just to report back on the resolution of issues.  WG
>>>> consensus is determined on the mailing list.
>>>> Wiki page is now available, for experts to share their view point.
>>>>
>>>> Cyril: SRLG collection draft: authors will address comments received
>>>> and welcomes new comments.
>>>> Lou: RSVP egress protection draft authors are asking for last call -
>>>> it is a good time to review this draft.
>>>>
>>>>> 2       9:10   10   Title:   Extensions to RSVP-TE for LSP Ingress
>>>> Local Protection
>>>>>         Draft:
>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-ingress-protection-0
>>>> 4
>>>>>         Presenter:   Huaimo Chen
>>>> 8 people support relay-message method.  4 people support
>>>> proxy-ingress method.
>>>> Each group of supporters are saying that their preferred method is
>>>> simpler.
>>>> Lou Berger: the selction between the two options was  obtained by
>> voting?
>>>> (Yes) Simple voting really isn't the same as consensus.  Please bring
>>>> the technical tradeoffs to the mailing list and let's try to discuss
>>>> and reach consensus there.  If you (authors) think it would be
>>>> helpful we can have a conference call (interim) to discuss the more
>> details.
>>>>> 3       9:20   15   Title:   TE Topology Model
>>>>>         Draft:   http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-yang-
>>>> te-topo
>>>>>         Presenter:   Xufeng Liu
>>>> Lou Berger: Please move (advanced) scheduling to its own document
>>>> Xufeng
>>>> Liu: We have to decide which WG Lou Berger: it's fine to start in
>>>> teas, but please seperate it Lou Berger: YANG model align to the I2RS
>>>> draft will be done in their WG?
>>>> Is it finished in teas?
>>>> Xufeng Liu: Almost, I2RS draft will be updated.
>>>> Xufeng: L3 topology model will have a reference to the TE topology
>> model.
>>>> Alex: We must be careful to avoid circular dependencies between these
>>>> two models.
>>>> Lou: It's good that you are working together to resolve this; if
>>>> there is a coordination issue between WGs then please raise with
>>>> chairs; please discuss technical issues on the mailing lists.
>>>>
>>>>> 4       9:35   15   Title:   RSVP and TE Yang models
>>>>>         Draft:   http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-yang-
>>>> rsvp
>>>>>           http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-yang-te
>>>>>         Presenter:   Tarek Saad
>>>> Ina: Operators want to turn MPLS on explicitly on interfaces.
>>>> Lou: The model allows MPLS and RSVP to be enabled independently.
>>>> Question to Ina: is that what you wanted?
>>>> Ina: We wanted to see if we could get rid of the need to enable them
>>>> independently but we could not find a way to do that.
>>>> Pawel: We use unnumbered interfaces a lot, this model has to cover
>> them.
>>>> Lou: (To Tarek) It's not always clear which RFCs you are mapping back
>>>> to and which you are supporting. It is important for implementers to
>>>> know this.
>>>> Lou: I think it's time to pull out the PSC specific pieces from this
>>>> document. The split pieces can start as a -00 working group document
>>>> as they are being split out from a WG doument.
>>>>
>>>>> 5       9:50   10   Title:   OpenConfig MPLS Model (TE Aspects)
>>>>>           http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-openconfig-mpls-
>>>> consolidated-model
>>>>>         Presenter:   Ina Minei
>>>> Anees: Find these models on github.com/openconfig/public.
>>>>
>>>>> 6       10:00   10   Title:   Usage of IM for network topology to
>>>> support TE Topology YANG Module Development
>>>>>         Draft:
>>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lam-teas-usage-info-model-net-
>>>> topology
>>>>>         Presenter:   Scott Mansfield
>>>> Lou Berger:  working with information models is appreciated. Your
>>>> intent is to build an information model that informs the data models
>>>> that we are working on, correct? (Scott, yes) In which case, please
>>>> could you bring any gaps that you find to the mailing list?
>>>> Scott: Yes, will bring that back to the authors.
>>>> Lou Berger: for Appendix A, confused about why a Data model is
>> presented.
>>>> Scott: it demonstrates how you can generate a data model if you
>>>> already have a info model, an example for guideline.
>>>> Scott: Appendix A is supposed to be an example; it is intended to
>>>> guide you to what you are building.
>>>> Lou: a pointer to this information may be better; it is confusing to
>>>> find a data model in an information model document.
>>>> Lou: It would also be good to provide the same sort of feedback to
>>>> CCAMP on their technology-specific models.
>>>>
>>>>> 7       10:10   10   Title:   Requirements for Abstraction and Control
>>>> of Transport Networks
>>>>>         Draft:   http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-actn-
>>>> requirements
>>>>>         Presenter:   Young Lee
>>>> Pavan: is there any ACTN work that need to change TEAS charter?
>>>> Young: We don't think it's going to change the charter.
>>>>
>>>>> 8       10:20   10   Title:   Framework for Abstraction and Control of
>>>> Transport Networks
>>>>>         Draft:
>>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ceccarelli-teas-actn-framework
>>>>>         Presenter:   Daniele Ceccarelli
>>>> Giovanni: What is the relationship between this draft and the te-
>>>> interconnection draft?
>>>> Lou Berger: that is already clarified, as
>>>> Adrian: bring some terminology from te-interconnection into ACTN work
>>>> to avoid inconsistency.
>>>> Young Lee: would like to collaborate on terminology level.
>>>> Young: we did not invent any new terminology, so if there is a
>>>> conflict in usage then we need to elaborate on that.
>>>> Lou: See RFC 7426 - you may wish to reuse that terminology, that is
>>>> what the IETF is using.
>>>> Lou: is everything in the framework controller-based?
>>>> Daniele: Yes - ACTN is between controllers, not between controllers
>>>> and NE
>>>> Lou: In TEAS we want to make sure that the number of layers is
>>>> arbitrary
>>>> Daniele: This is OK, stacking of layers is allowed.
>>>>
>>>>> 9       10:30   10   Title:   Information Model for Abstraction and
>>>> Control of TE Networks (ACTN)
>>>>>         Draft:   http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-leebelotti-
>> teas-
>>>> actn-info
>>>>>         Presenter:   Sergio Belotti
>>>> Lou: When you talked about connectivity topology there seems to be
>>>> overlap with Scott's presentation. It would be good if you could work
>>>> together on that.
>>>>
>>>>> 10       10:40   10   Title:   Architecture for Scheduled Use of
>>>> Resources
>>>>>         Draft:
>>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zhuang-teas-scheduled-resources
>>>>>         Presenter:   Adrian Farrel
>>>> Ken: Are future bookings always first come first serveed or are there
>>>> other prioritizations?
>>>> Adrian: This is a question of what policy do you want to implement on
>>>> your servce which is beyond our scope.
>>>> Robin: We have proposed a similar time-based approach for BGP flowspec.
>>>> ??? I think there should be some framework for synchronizing the
>>>> time- based request with the actual service flow.
>>>>
>>>>> 11       10:50  10   Title:   Framework for Temporal Tunnel Services
>>>>>         Draft:   http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-teas-
>> frmwk-
>>>> tts
>>>>>         Presenter:   Huaimo Chen
>>>> Lou: it seems that this documents and the preceding document both
>>>> talk about the same problem space.  Is the WG interested in working
>>>> on this problem?
>>>> Daniele: I am really interested in this work, but what is the scope?
>>>> Are we interested only in networks with RSVP-TE?
>>>> Lou: No, we are interested in all TE networks.  We want to discuss
>>>> architecture for now, nor solutions.
>>>>
>>>> Gert: I have never seen a large scale TE signaling deployment. So I
>>>> do not have much interest in seeing these drafts.
>>>> Lou: This discussion has come up often over many years, but we have
>>>> not got to the point where enough people are prepared to work on it.
>>>>
>>>> Lou: Who is interested in working on this?  Raise your hands. (About
>>>> 15
>>>> people.)
>>>> Lou: Now who does not want to work on it?  Raise your hands.  (About
>>>> 6-8
>>>> people.)  OK, somewhat more people want to work on it than don't.
>>>>
>>>> Lou: WG please go and read this draft and comment, let's see if there
>>>> is value on continue doing this.
>>>> Himanshu: I would prefer to ask who wants to work on the distributed
>>>> model?
>>>> Adrian:
>>>> Daniele: prefer to follow a single model.
>>>>
>>>>> 12       11:00   10   Title:   Architecture and Requirement for
>>>> Distribution of Link-State and TE Information via PCEP
>>>>>         Draft:   http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-leedhody-teas-
>>>> pcep-ls
>>>>>         Presenter:   Dhruv Dhody
>>>> Lou Berger: Any architecture changes?
>>>> Lou: Most of this is basic architecture, and most of it is existing
>>>> architecture. So having a discussion of the basic architecture in a
>>>> protocol-agnostic way is OK for clarification, but we should focus
>>>> only on the architectural aspects.
>>>> Dhruv: We are not trying to introduce a new architectural concept. We
>>>> are trying to assess the impact and applicability to use a new
>> protocol.
>>>> Dhruv: Making this document agnostic of the protocol destroys the
>>>> value of the document.  The whole purpose is to explore the
>>>> applicability of using PCEP for this.
>>>>
>>>> Sergio: To provide remote information you need to have IGP in the
>>>> network, so what is the advtangtage of using PCEP as well?
>>>> Dhruv:
>>>>
>>>>> 13       11:10   10   Title:   PCE as a Central Controller (PCECC)
>>>>>         Draft:
>>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zhao-pce-central-controller-use
>>>> r-
>>>> cases
>>>>>         Presenter:   Dhruv Dhody/Quintin Zhao
>>>> Lou: How many have read this document?  (Quite a few)
>>>> Lou: informational or standard track?
>>>> Dhruv: there are two drafts related, informational for use case one
>>>> (presented here), and experimental for the protocol extension (in PCE
>>>> working group).
>>>> Lou: Who thinks this is a good idea?  (Almost the same)
>>>> Lou: Who thinks we should not work on this (One or two)
>>>> Sergio: Not a bad idea, but PCE should be a part of the controller,
>>>> not the controller itself.
>>>>
>>>>> 14       11:20   10   Title:   ISIS Extensions in Support of Inter-AS
>>>> MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering
>>>>>         Draft:   http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-teas-
>>>> rfc5316bis
>>>>>         Presenter:   Mach Chen
>>>> Les Ginsberg: Does this draft belong in ISIS WG or here?
>>>> Lou: The original RFC was done at the same time as the OSPF version -
>>>> does the OSPF document suffer the same flaws as RFC 5316?
>>>> Mach: No, the problems are only for IS-IS.
>>>> Chris Hopps: Happy for this document to move to ISIS WG.
>>>>
>>>>> Adjourn       11:30
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Note takers add your name here
>>>> Jon Hardwick
>>>> Haomian Zheng
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Teas mailing list
>>>> Teas@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>