Re: [Teas] Proposed charter update

[Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>]

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: [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
>
>