Re: [Teas] Augmenting te-topo wasRe: rough notes from meeting

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Sat, 26 September 2020 13:47 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 42AA23A0948 for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 26 Sep 2020 06:47:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=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 O6UGgocQOueA for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 26 Sep 2020 06:47:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gproxy10-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy10-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.20.226]) (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 973623A0940 for <teas@ietf.org>; Sat, 26 Sep 2020 06:47:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cmgw14.unifiedlayer.com (unknown [10.9.0.14]) by gproxy10.mail.unifiedlayer.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A6C0140505 for <teas@ietf.org>; Sat, 26 Sep 2020 07:47:07 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmsmtp with ESMTP id MAXbkFueIwNNlMAXbkbkpE; Sat, 26 Sep 2020 07:47:07 -0600
X-Authority-Reason: nr=8
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.3 cv=NY/IKVL4 c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:17 a=dLZJa+xiwSxG16/P+YVxDGlgEgI=:19 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10:nop_ipv6 a=reM5J-MqmosA:10:nop_rcvd_month_year a=Vy_oeq2dmq0A:10:endurance_base64_authed_username_1 a=r77TgQKjGQsHNAKrUKIA:9 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=wU2YTnxGAAAA:8 a=E1R-V3ATAAAA:8 a=55icsXYDAAAA:20 a=6QK7PSCwpr2aHxQFHfwA:9 a=sBhYRarlIQlhBesH:21 a=dDaNp0pCDeLWUpG5:21 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10:nop_charset_2 a=-RoEEKskQ1sA:10:nop_election2020_name_body a=UqCG9HQmAAAA:8 a=NJ4vzHCOhhVh0RP5MhIA:9 a=areJxwy9v4DSwkRG:21 a=ooCkSWV5qwmP5YHK:21 a=XhkvplphGzZRUn_T:21 a=_W_S_7VecoQA:10:nop_html a=w1C3t2QeGrPiZgrLijVG:22 a=Yz9wTY_ffGCQnEDHKrcv:22 a=BQiZhFUHZ1rCP-FNh-iw:22
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From: References:Cc:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: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=9G25eG3TOUdJraRX0cMXHntGVTqx2Mcv4dz1Rd+alp4=; b=q9k+D5mGC7NcZwT1kKSJnhWCks Hdd4yXYQg95pXojqWjR934gJleM9mIKZ+xiZOWl38XbKYXKc2BOpf1Uho7o5QLJgmr73EJ5jZg8gx lmLOkzpGY7k6m6zdK2Gm4w/Qj;
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (port=54099 helo=[IPv6:::1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1kMAXa-001nIV-RW; Sat, 26 Sep 2020 07:47:06 -0600
To: tom petch <ietfa@btconnect.com>, TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>
Cc: "ccamp@ietf.org" <CCAMP@ietf.org>, TEAS WG Chairs <teas-chairs@ietf.org>
References: <881740c6-5e91-047b-c084-ba5f004e6f09@labn.net> <DB7PR07MB5340342789AE575F32826BD0A23B0@DB7PR07MB5340.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Message-ID: <933f2356-7a41-9710-5568-c03c691c816d@labn.net>
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2020 09:47:05 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <DB7PR07MB5340342789AE575F32826BD0A23B0@DB7PR07MB5340.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------F35B41DE13AE736A20A4FA35"
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: 127.0.0.1
X-Source-L: Yes
X-Exim-ID: 1kMAXa-001nIV-RW
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-Source-Sender: ([IPv6:::1]) [127.0.0.1]:54099
X-Source-Auth: lberger@labn.net
X-Email-Count: 4
X-Source-Cap: bGFibm1vYmk7bGFibm1vYmk7Ym94MzEzLmJsdWVob3N0LmNvbQ==
X-Local-Domain: yes
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/ejSZIkk_dD6YKwLAmnx_pJ55sn8>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Augmenting te-topo wasRe: rough notes from meeting
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: Sat, 26 Sep 2020 13:47:11 -0000

Hi Tom,

     sorry about the delayed response.  I think this a fair question for 
the WG as a whole (not me alone).

My view as a WG participant is in-line below.

On 9/22/2020 7:17 AM, tom petch wrote:
> Lou
> (borrowing a useful email to raise a fresh topic)
>
> When te-topo is augmented with a new technology, there is a need to specify the new type.  Should this be an augment to
> networks/network/network-types/te-topology
> or an augment to
> networks/network/network-types
> ie do you see the new technology sitting alongside te-topology or subordinate to it?

IMO it depends on the specifics of the augmentation.  If it is 
TE-specific and relying on general TE information, then subordinate 
makes sense to me.

> wson-yang is in IETF last call and has just been revised and the presence container wson-topology is subordinate to te-topology while the description says augment network types.  What matters I think is that the approach is consistent.

I previously looks at this draft and it's augmentations looked correct 
to me.  I focused more on the tree representation rather than the actual 
model so missed this in the description.  Even so, I'm not sure I would 
have noticed as  it reads:

      augment "/nw:networks/nw:network/nw:network-types"
            + "/tet:te-topology" {
        description
          "Augment network types to define WSON topology type.";

and it's the te-topology network type (container) that is being augmented.  It sounds like you'd like to see the description changed from "network types " to "te-topology network type".  I think this is a fine, and very minor, clarification.
Lou


>   I looked at RFC8795 but could not see any guidance there.
>
> Tom Petch
>
> From: Teas <teas-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
> Sent: 31 July 2020 14:04
> To: TEAS WG
> Cc: TEAS WG Chairs
> Subject: [Teas] rough notes from meeting
>
> All,
>
> Thank you all for participating today! Please visit
> https://codimd.ietf.org/notes-ietf-108-teas?both and verify that your
> comments/discussions were appropriately captured.
>
> Thank you!
>
> Lou (and Pavan and Matt)
>
> ## TEAS Notes For IETF 108
>
>
> ## Session Information
>
>
>                   TEAS Agenda For IETF 108
>                   Version: Jul 26, 2020
>
>                   Session 1: Friday, July 31, 2020 (UTC)
>                   11:00-12:40 Friday Session I (UTC)
>
>
> | |  |
> | -------- | -------- |
> |  Location:    |
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/108/floor-plan?room=room-6 |
> | Materials:    | https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/108/session/teas |
> | Meetecho:    | http://www.meetecho.com/ietf108/teas |
> | Audio stream:    | http://mp3.conf.meetecho.com/ietf/ietf1086.m3u |
> | Jabber:    | http://jabber.ietf.org/logs/teas |
> | WG  ICS:    |
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/upcoming.ics?filters=teas |
> | Session ICS:     |
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/108/session/28181.ics|
>
>
> ## Presentation       Start Time     Duration     Information
>
> ## 1    11:00    5    Title:    Administrivia & WG Status
>   > Draft:
>   > Presenter:    Chairs
>
> ## 2    11:05    5    Title:    WG Draft updates
>   > Draft:    Many
>   > Presenter:    Chairs
>
> Adrian Farrel: draft-king-teas-applicability-actn-slicing has been respoon
> Jie Dong: The plan is to move it to other documents (currently individual)
> Eric Gray: The scope of the new documents are more narrow than the
> original so removal is problematic
> Vishnu Beeram: Please discuss the change on the list
> Lou Berger: Please discuss with WG before (re)moving text from a WG
> document
>
> ## 3    11:10    10    Title:    Yang model for requesting Path Computation
>   > Draft:
>   > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-yang-path-computation-10
>   > Presenter:    Sergio Belotti
>
> Lou Berger: Suggest discussing/reporting any tool issues with the tool
> author -- (from jabber: report issue via https://github.com/mbj4668/pyang)
> Rob Wilton (from Jabber):
>     On the path computation presentation, and having looked at RFC 7950,
> for issue #76 (1) and (2) I think that the pyang 2.1 behaviour is
> correct.  I.e. don't include "input" and for (2), I think that this
> isn't allowed. The key text being section 6.4.1 or RFC 7950
>
>
>
> ## 4    11:20    10    Title:    Yang model update
>   > Draft:
>   > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-te-service-mapping-yang-04
>   >
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-actn-pm-telemetry-autonomics-03
>   > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang-09
>   > Presenter:    Dhruv Dhody
>
> Tarek Saad: Is the path computed by "template" in TE-Service mapping,
> stateful in nature?
> Dhruv Dhody: This is just the constraints and optimization criteria and
> nothing to do with the statefulness of path.
> Daniele Ceccarelli: This comes from the OSS layer, which doesn't care
> about how it is provided via te tunnels, just that the service
> characteristics are met
>
> ## 5    11:30    10    Title:    DT Intro, IETF Definition of Transport
> Slice
>   > Draft:
>   > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nsdt-teas-transport-slice-definition-03
>   > Presenter:    Jari Arkko + Reza Rokui
> Actual Start Time: 11:42
>
>
> ## 6    11:40    10    Title:    Framework for Transport Network Slices
>   > Draft:
>   > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nsdt-teas-ns-framework-04
>       > Presenter:Eric Gray
>   >
> Actual Start Time: 11:53
>
> Daniele Ceccarelli: in ACTN we have defined the interface between MDSC
> and CNC as a boundary between a customer and the operator. We are now
> lacking of a reference point between the MDSC and another entity within
> the operator. We have identified a similar issue in the context of POI.
> On the MDSC role, I agree with the interpretation.
>
> Lou Berger: Any objections to adoption?
>       <none></none>
>       Please expect an adoption call on list.
>
>
> ## 7    11:50    10    Title:    Transport Network Slice YANG Data Model
>   > Draft:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-liu-teas-transport-network-slice-yang-01
>   > Presenter:    Xufeng Liu
> Actual Start time: 12:10
>
>
> ## 8    12:00    10    Title:     A Yang Data Model for Transport Slice NBI
>   > Draft:
>   > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wd-teas-transport-slice-yang-02
>   > Presenter:    Bo Wu
> Actual Start Time: 12:18
>
> (From Jabber) Vishnu Beeram: Note that the previous presentation ties
> the modeling of a transport network slice to existing network topology
> models while the current presentation focuses on the service view of a
> slice. Please chime in with your views on these 2 approaches (either
> here or on the list).. There seems to be a case being made (by both sets
> of authors) to make room for both -- please discuss if you have any
> objections...
> Lou Berger: Please take comments/discussion to list
>
> ## 9    12:10    10    Title:    Network Slicing with Flexible Traffic
> Engineering
>   > Draft:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zzhang-teas-network-slicing-with-flex-te-00
>   > Presenter:    Jeffrey Zhang
> Actual Start Time: 12:26
>
> Please take comments/discussion to list
>
> ## 10    12:20    10    Title:    Packet Network Slicing using Segment
> Routing
>   > Draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-peng-teas-network-slicing-03
>   > Presenter:    Ran Chen
> Actual Start Time: 12:31
>
> Please take comments/discussion to list
>
> ## 11    12:30    10    Title:    A YANG Data Model for MPLS-TE Topology
>   > Draft:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-busizheng-teas-yang-te-mpls-topology-00
>   > Presenter:    Italo Busi
>   > Actual Start Time: 12:36
>
> Please take comments/discussion to list
>
> ## Adjourn    12:40
>   >
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>