Re: [Teas] Proposed charter update

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Mon, 15 October 2018 14:59 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
X-Original-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02D62128BAC for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Oct 2018 07:59:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (768-bit key) header.d=labn.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CToqX53tOBTk for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Oct 2018 07:59:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outbound-ss-579.bluehost.com (outbound-ss-579.bluehost.com [74.220.218.175]) (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 EC2F3130E48 for <teas@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Oct 2018 07:59:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cmgw12.unifiedlayer.com (unknown [10.9.0.12]) by gproxy6.mail.unifiedlayer.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 819A61E0FE2 for <teas@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Oct 2018 08:59:18 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmsmtp with ESMTP id C4L0gRVy1E0jMC4L0gsMgj; Mon, 15 Oct 2018 08:59:18 -0600
X-Authority-Reason: nr=8
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version :Date:Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=gasE4r3/sc5qJ3LVvR9HpKWkkoZLhCpcvS5HuK69tGY=; b=gcaPnDHisBMgx284v57JlCqOjD dLwGd9gDEirxTDK4pMjNLunqQAgIUNm8tfOKNPxqgKpDeUDWtfO7X5LxanZTi+Ok9Yg8HOxMxfsH/ ggJV05PWUg1BEbKfJr0Dd7Cfm;
Received: from pool-100-15-106-211.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([100.15.106.211]:34970 helo=[IPv6:::1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.91) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1gC4L0-001hwC-7O; Mon, 15 Oct 2018 08:59:18 -0600
To: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com>, Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: TEAS WG Chairs <teas-chairs@ietf.org>, TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>
References: <CA+YzgTsRGs8tyn4d8jykTLtUNJ=bTXrsG5N+bDpu99mAUufx5g@mail.gmail.com> <e389ebd8-cdeb-8bf1-6c9b-47e7ca1fff9e@labn.net> <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B8D7F768F@BLREML503-MBX.china.huawei.com>
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Message-ID: <01952659-acc7-50b5-99aa-88ec8528414a@labn.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 10:59:17 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B8D7F768F@BLREML503-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - box313.bluehost.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - labn.net
X-BWhitelist: no
X-Source-IP: 100.15.106.211
X-Source-L: No
X-Exim-ID: 1gC4L0-001hwC-7O
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-Source-Sender: pool-100-15-106-211.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([IPv6:::1]) [100.15.106.211]:34970
X-Source-Auth: lberger@labn.net
X-Email-Count: 13
X-Source-Cap: bGFibm1vYmk7bGFibm1vYmk7Ym94MzEzLmJsdWVob3N0LmNvbQ==
X-Local-Domain: yes
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/cbtxEyeQOY1zSt-SezfFOeXfFts>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Proposed charter update
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, 15 Oct 2018 14:59:24 -0000

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: dhruv.dhody@huawei.com
>
> 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:teas-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lou Berger
>> Sent: 10 October 2018 22:45
>> To: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>;
>> Cc: TEAS WG Chairs <teas-chairs@ietf.org>;; TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>;
>> 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
>>> Teas@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>> _______________________________________________
>> Teas mailing list
>> Teas@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list
> Teas@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas