Re: [Teas] Proposed charter update

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dhruv,


On 10/12/2018 1:01 AM, Dhruv Dhody wrote:
> Hi Lou,
>
> OLDER:
> a) Traffic-engineering architectures for generic applicability
> across packet and non-packet networks. This includes both
> networks that include the use of PCE and those that do not.
> The PCE architecture itself is out of the WG scope.
>
> OLD:
> a) Traffic-engineering architectures for generic applicability
> across packet and non-packet networks.. This includes, for example,
> both networks that include the use of PCE and those that conform with
> ACTN principles but don't make use of PCE. The PCE architecture itself
> is out of the WG scope.
>
> NEW:
> a) Traffic-engineering architectures for generic applicability
> across packet and non-packet networks. This includes, for example,
> networks that perform centralized computation and control, in conformance
> with ACTN (and PCE) principles as well as distributed computation and
> control. The use of PCEP is optional and the PCE architecture itself
> is out of the WG scope.
>
> Call to the wordsmiths in the WG to further refine! :)
>
> I wanted to differentiate between PCE (entity that does path computation) and the PCEP (protocol).
> "..ACTN principles but don't make use of PCE" was the main issue!

ACTN and PCE are different things?  IAs I see it, it's possible to have 
a controller that follows ACTN but not PCE (as embodied in the related 
RFCs).  I think your point is that one that does this is still following 
PCE *principles* -- do I understand correctly?  If so, I think this is a 
very subtle point and perhaps, we can side step this as follows:

a) Traffic-engineering architectures for generic applicability
      across packet and non-packet networks. This includes, for example,
      networks that perform centralized computation and control,
      distributed computation and control, or even a hybrid approach.

What do you think?

Thanks,
Lou
> Hope this helps!
>
> Regards,
> Dhruv
>
>
> --
> Dhruv Dhody
> Lead Architect
> Network Business Line
> Huawei Technologies India Pvt. Ltd.
> Survey No. 37, Next to EPIP Area, Kundalahalli, Whitefield
> Bengaluru, Karnataka - 560066
> Tel: + 91-80-49160700 Ext 71583 II Email: [e-mail]
>
> This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from HUAWEI, which
> is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the
> information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial
> disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended
> recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by
> phone or email immediately and delete it!
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Teas [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Lou Berger
>> Sent: 10 October 2018 22:45
>> To: Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: TEAS WG Chairs <[e-mail]>; TEAS WG <[e-mail]>
>> Subject: Re: [Teas] Proposed charter update
>>
>> Dhruv,
>>
>> you made the following comment on the google doc:
>>
>>> *Dhruv Dhody*
>>>
>>> This should convey that both centralized (controller) and distributed
>>> TE is in scope. And then use of "PCEP" is optional in the controller.
>>> I dont think that is clear with this text.
>>>
>> Do you have any specific text proposals to address your concern?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Lou
>>
>>
>> On 10/8/2018 2:49 AM, Vishnu Pavan Beeram wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Over the past few months we've noted that our charter could use a bit
>>> of an update to match the current state of TEAS and other working groups.
>>> We've taken a pass at this and have a proposed revision.  Once the WG
>>> agrees on changes, we'll pass those changes along to our AD who is the
>>> actual owner of our charter.  The text is enclosed below as well as
>>> available with changes tracked at:
>>>
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_d
>>> ocument_d_1l5y3nH3KmOQbHOMp-5FRFm1SK5riS5qi1klve-2D-2DkyUbSU_edit-3Fus
>>> p-3Dsharing&d=DwIDaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=C
>>> FHVfW0WsgxSqM6wTJiWE5evUJAdlUl1fm7E0WVbiS8&m=6pI1yDFJYCLr4YBDXOEJFxWzJ
>>> QMmsW5q1X0ic60qgM4&s=XHgp3ISuFZZj_FUiGKK2ZjRndlSyIxgomtfqyEt3DRU&e=
>>>
>>> Please discuss any proposed changes on the list, i.e., changes to the
>>> charter that are suggested in the google-doc but not agreed to here
>>> will be ignored.
>>>
>>> We'd like to have the changes agreed to by the end of this month so
>>> the IESG may have time to review/act before  IETF103.
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>> Pavan and Lou
>>>
>>> --
>>> Draft Update to TEAS WG Charter (Version 1)
>>>
>>> The Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling (TEAS) Working
>>> Group is responsible for defining IP, MPLS and GMPLS traffic
>>> engineering architecture and identifying required related
>>> control-protocol functions, i.e., routing and path computation element
>>> functions. The TEAS group is also responsible for standardizing
>>> generalized, i.e., non-technology specific, RSVP-TE signaling protocol
>>> mechanisms,
>>>
>>> Traffic Engineering (TE) is the term used to refer to techniques that
>>> enable operators to control how specific traffic flows are treated
>>> within their networks. TE is applied to packet networks via MPLS TE
>>> tunnels and LSPs, but may also be provided by other mechanisms such as
>>> forwarding rules similar to policy-based routing. The MPLS-TE control
>>> plane was generalized to additionally support non-packet technologies
>>> via GMPLS.  RSVP-TE is the signaling protocol used for both MPLS-TE
>>> and GMPLS. Centralized and logically centralized control models are
>>> also supported, e.g., via Abstraction and Control of Traffic
>>> Engineered Networks (ACTN) and stateful-PCE.
>>>
>>>   The TEAS WG is responsible for:
>>>
>>>     a) Traffic-engineering architectures for generic applicability
>>> across packet and non-packet networks.. This includes, for example,
>>> both networks that include the use of PCE and those that conform with
>>> ACTN principles but don't make use of PCE. The PCE architecture itself
>>> is out of the WG scope.
>>>
>>>     b) Definition of protocol-independent metrics and parameters
>>> (measurement and/or service attributes) for describing links and
>>> tunnels/paths required for traffic engineering (and related routing,
>>> signaling and path computation). These will be developed in
>>> conjunction with requests and requirements from other WGs to ensure
>>> overall usefulness.
>>>
>>>     c) Functional specification of extensions for routing (OSPF, ISIS)
>>> and for path computation (PCE), including those that provide general
>>> enablers of traffic-engineering systems that also use RSVP-TE.
>>> Protocol formats and procedures that embody these extensions will be
>>> done in coordination with the WGs supervising those protocols.
>>>
>>>     d) Functional specification of generic (i.e., not data plane
>>> technology-specific) extensions for RSVP-TE, and the associated
>>> protocol formats and procedures that embody these extensions.
>>>
>>>     e) Definition of control plane mechanisms and extensions to allow
>>> the setup and maintenance of TE paths and TE tunnels that span
>>> multiple domains and/or switching technologies, where a domain may be
>>> an IGP area, an Autonomous System, or any other region of topological
>> visibility.
>>>     f) Definition and extension of management and security techniques
>>> for RSVP-TE signaling. This includes configuring and monitoring
>>> RSVP-TE as well as mechanisms used to configure, control, and report
>>> OAM within TE networks. YANG and MIB modules may be considered.
>>>
>>>    The TEAS working group is chartered to deliver the following:
>>>
>>>     1. Definition of additional abstract service, link, and path
>>> properties such as jitter, delay, and diversity. Extensions to IGPs to
>>> advertise these properties, and extensions to RSVP-TE to request and
>>> to accumulate these properties. Work with PCE WG to include these
>>> properties in computation requests.
>>>
>>>     2. Specification of terminology, architecture, and protocol
>>> requirements for abstraction and distribution of TE information
>>> between interconnected TE domains/layers.
>>>
>>>     3. Specification and protocol extensions for a GMPLS External
>>> Network-to-Network Interface (E-NNI), i.e., multi-domain GMPLS support.
>>>
>>>     4. Protocol mechanisms to signal associated LSPs in particular with
>>> different source nodes.
>>>
>>>     5. Requirements and protocol extensions for additional protection
>>> mechanisms including end-point protection, protection of P2MP LSPs,
>>> and inter-domain protection.
>>>
>>>     6. YANG models in support of Traffic Engineering, in coordination
>>> with working groups working on YANG models for network topology and
>>> for technology-specific network attributes.
>>>
>>>    Requirements may be documented in stand-alone RFCs, may be folded
>>> into architecture or solutions RFCs, may be recorded on a wiki, or may
>>> be documented in an Internet-Draft that is not progressed to RFC.
>>>
>>>    The TEAS WG will coordinate with the following working groups:
>>>
>>>     - With the MPLS WG to maintain and extend MPLS-TE protocol
>>> mechanisms and to determine whether they should be generalized.
>>>
>>>     - With the CCAMP WG to maintain and extend non-packet, data plane
>>> technology-specific TE protocol mechanisms and to determine whether
>>> they should be generalized.
>>>
>>>     - With the LSR (OSPF and ISIS) WG to maintain or extend TE routing
>>> mechanisms.
>>>
>>>     - With the PCE WG on uses of a PCE in the traffic-engineering
>>> architecture, on PCE extensions per the above, and on RSVP-TE
>>> extensions to support PCE WG identified requirements.
>>>
>>>     - With the IDR WG on the use of BGP-LS in TE environments.
>>>
>>>     - With the DetNet WG on mechanisms (YANG models and protocols) to
>>> support DetNet use cases.
>>>
>>>     - With the SPRING WG on TE architecture and, where appropriate,
>>> TE-related protocol extensions.
>>>
>>> In doing this work, the WG will cooperate with external SDOs (such as
>>> the ITU-T and the IEEE 802.1) as necessary.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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