Re: [Teas] Proposed charter update

Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 15 October 2018 15:51 UTC

Return-Path: <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
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 26E7D130EA2; Mon, 15 Oct 2018 08:51:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 vNYdVrp51LD4; Mon, 15 Oct 2018 08:51:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd34.google.com (mail-io1-xd34.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A68BF1277CC; Mon, 15 Oct 2018 08:51:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd34.google.com with SMTP id p4-v6so14588544iom.3; Mon, 15 Oct 2018 08:51:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=CsysxUbCsLIxhKAHJX7v/ukK+DAkeeyeZsg1V6rxbtQ=; b=EqPiwtLxR7sm78fP+RryoQ3uMNyW/wxM3KhaCJtAasWWwal5QRSNY7LrcNmHw/C1aq HmSMZpcCsXx1HJ1OboPyHdTHN9HgUvmr7YNJ/BbZlR+5ScGL7SPQsTpabK1lEWutB/ye EN/F9QD55o/d2rtWPfRTNk5hSI/4wmysA7kB5cZ+91OVAtIVWZia4uqTx8qcy8S/asVb X2BWlyneev52B1W2IA8vSsHvNKnydhVRwCn7ksBo08SMal+KWIXCJ2ZATdo5GfrZdB/3 imeOuQ3/n6KApxebrY+IyPJqNx7p5OyjU8Q3/Sd7AkdcgWsSdkVZLXg0NEEnBOFM2xO8 /l9A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=CsysxUbCsLIxhKAHJX7v/ukK+DAkeeyeZsg1V6rxbtQ=; b=ZgrNPTzE3et4UG1zbvwMBPDT5V93w5EN8vGmz6ynUWUdHXtfMEyrepKl4aPv2JLq/X E9J19SKwNfuVMqg+kxdrhsusGTM30J4UKYTp4Ev8H8iL3YAPIi7oWlfJMNqaQuYrAMtk W7jNw3csZB+HUHOJb2gp/OgLHpseNtirowvxPL8yHke13bf2K52xgNLh52KMeMCnPdqD HRoElmavjWh+RjUCrpPdwKeBMdFXyts+QLZItTjuVWE5CrZylcyEjWXuA1MuKdIz4lz6 BJmO+kxlbZmUnN1XgUUUpG6vj7qW7ABYJ3xsRuvVTC92hWJWDEB2421W3/1GHN+w/0Zy dWOQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfogVTIdWfeVxcqMpKJiwSnpzSJJK9xWusuMZ7bRaSM0eaKL7IcEr XQyt+qc5666duKzTDVJRS3D7giLA+2kPmWHSiQk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV61e6U9nEsZQOEn/7FNfndUD1oyh/d2WuEtvdbm3Q3GMq83w/g9x5NbIRdab7ofKbxC8lrKjlh/n9wqipXxyfMo=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:c085:: with SMTP id q127-v6mr11185372iof.255.1539618685620; Mon, 15 Oct 2018 08:51:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CA+YzgTsRGs8tyn4d8jykTLtUNJ=bTXrsG5N+bDpu99mAUufx5g@mail.gmail.com> <e389ebd8-cdeb-8bf1-6c9b-47e7ca1fff9e@labn.net> <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B8D7F768F@BLREML503-MBX.china.huawei.com> <01952659-acc7-50b5-99aa-88ec8528414a@labn.net>
In-Reply-To: <01952659-acc7-50b5-99aa-88ec8528414a@labn.net>
From: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 21:21:13 +0530
Message-ID: <CAB75xn7Y5A0qKZAcJoz_PpaEw5B3jBkROHTkFPyxKsRXaDp2eQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Cc: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com>, teas-chairs@ietf.org, "TEAS WG (teas@ietf.org)" <teas@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d895dd05784668c5"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/l6RhhK20XsUQ0wTp3sJZdzArEPs>
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 15:51:30 -0000

Hi Lou,

>
> > 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?


Yes, IMHO even when yang is being used in ACTN, the controllers still
implement the PCE functions (without the use of PCEP).



> 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?
>

But, this side stepping is perfectly fine!

Thanks!
Dhruv

>
> 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>rg>; 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
>
>