Re: [Teas] Poll on draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements-01 a WG documents

["Zhangxian (Xian)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Lou,   

    Thank you for your reply and good examples. Before diving into the details, we do need to focus on the main point: name changing/ACTN definition. So, here goes my rough thought: 

    ACTN (Abstraction and Control of TE Networks, which seems to be the best compromise so far.) supports the capabilities and functionalities needed to operate, control and manage the virtualized networks via hierarchical abstraction of TE domains so as to meet operators' requirements on better network programmability, automation and facilitating resource sharing.

    This summary is according to my best and limited understanding of ACTN since I am not really involved in the work deeply and open to further amendment/correction. 

    My further reply inline marked with [Xian]:   

-----Original Message-----
From: Lou Berger [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: 2015年9月20日 21:51
To: Zhangxian (Xian); Igor Bryskin; Leeyoung; Doolan, Paul (Coriant - US/Irving)
Cc: TEAS WG; Daniele Ceccarelli; Vishnu Pavan Beeram; Varma, Eve L (Eve); [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Teas] Poll on draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements-01 a WG documents


Xian,

On 9/19/2015 3:15 AM, Zhangxian (Xian) wrote:
> Hi, Lou, 
>
>    You said: 
> " The core requirements say nothing
> about distributed or "logically centralized" control models and the only
> place it shows is by inference in the interfaces section."
>
>   This requirement draft is no way an independent one, but rather takes the framework proposed in [1] as an assumption, so it implies that it is based on a "logically centralized" control models, isn't it? Since you asked, I was a bit surprised that the framework was not adopted first, but rather the requirement draft which depends on the former. 
>
>   As for your question (i.e., Abstraction and Control are both things supported by today's standards, so what's new from the requirements perspective?): I am not sure I get your exact point, do you mean that the requirements listed in the draft can already be supported by the existing RFCs developed by TEAS/CCAMP?

Close, but turn it around a bit.  I'm asking what new capabilities are
being asked for, from TE networks,  in the requirements.  Saying ACTN
requirements cover ACTN is a bit circular.  As a parallel, consider
MPLS-TP.  When considering what's new in MPLS-TP requirements, it's
possible to go read a fairly succinct definition in RFC5654:

   MPLS
   Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) [that] supports the capabilities and
   functionalities needed for packet-transport network services and
   operations through combining the packet experience of MPLS with the
   operational experience and practices of existing transport networks.

and

   This document specifies the requirements of an MPLS Transport Profile
   (MPLS-TP).

So this is a case there the requirements were specific to the solution
space, which may also be the case here.  But, at the last meeting we
seemed to be headed to address a particular problem space ("logically
centralized" control models), given this we were motivated to make the
name change.

Now the case is being made (notably by Igor, who providing technical
substanciation) that ACTN is aimed at solving a super-set/broader
problem.  To me  this is the strongest justification made so far to keep
actn in the name.   -- presuming that -01 rev of the document adds the
appropriate definition of ACTN to the document.

[Xian]: I do think Igor really provides a good explanation of ACTN. But to me, that explanation does not add anything new, but rather cap it well with much less words. As you see, I have tried to provide a simple summary of what ACTN is and I hope we can get converged soon.

>  I believe there is no disagreement that the architecture put forwarded by the ACTN team is new. 
And I think we all agree there is good work needed / to be done.
[Xian]: Good to know this.

> As for the list of requirements, let's focus on one or two examples to start with: how is the requirement 3, i.e. VN Query, supported by existing protocols/RFCs? I do not think we have any solution yet.
I'm not sure focusing on a gap analysis is really part of this
conversation.
[Xian]: Sure; I did not think that way either; merely want to understand your point better via some examples. 

But since you ask,  YANG TE Topology and perhaps even BGP-LS seem to
have significant overlap with that requirement.  -- Again whether it
does or doesn't, doesn't change the requirements naming discussion or
the ACTN definition discussion which we've evolved into. 

[Xian]: Well, this is open to debate and will indeed come into picture at a later stage. Thank you for bringing me back to the main point and let's get focused on it at this point of time.

Cheers,
Xian

Thanks,
Lou

>
> Regards,
> Xian
>
> [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ceccarelli-teas-actn-framework-00
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Teas [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Lou Berger
> Sent: 2015年9月19日 3:37
> To: Igor Bryskin; Leeyoung; Doolan, Paul (Coriant - US/Irving)
> Cc: TEAS WG; Daniele Ceccarelli; Vishnu Pavan Beeram; Varma, Eve L (Eve); [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Teas] Poll on draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements-01 a WG documents
>
> Igor,
>
> On 9/18/2015 2:51 PM, Igor Bryskin wrote:
>> Hi Lou,
>> You asked:
>> - Abstraction and Control are both things supported by today's standards, so what's new from the requirements perspective?
>>
>> First, I think that at this stage it is a bit too late to ask questions like this, isn't it?
> So the new part of ACTN (WRT TEAS) identified/discussed/seemingly agreed
> to in Prague was the support for a "logically centralized" control
> model.  -- more on this later.
>
> My question here, really was more limited than ACTN as a whole but
> really the requirements documents.  The core requirements say nothing
> about distributed or "logically centralized" control models and the only
> place it shows is by inference in the interfaces section.  So the
> question is an honest one, and I appreciate you being the 1st at taking
> a stab at responding to it.
>
>> Second, I'd leave for the designers of the ACTN to answer this. My personal answer would be this:
>> Luyuan was talking about the need of interconnecting millions of MSFT servers. How do you describe a transport network capable of doing that? One solution is via hierarchical abstraction of numerous TE domains provided by multiple providers. Please, correct me if I am wrong, but I am not aware of any IETF documents setting requirements for said abstracted hierarchical TE networks: presentation, features, re-configuration capabilities, models, etc. Nor I am aware of any architecture or framework describing what exactly operators and/or SDN controllers/applications can do with such networks, in particular how they can orchestrate end-to-end transport services, manipulate and monitor them, place them with sufficient diversity from each other, etc. How they can perform capacity analysis of said networks and other network planning functions? How they convey policies wrt various transport behaviors and profiles? This kind of things IMO need to be addressed under the ACTN umbrella.
> This is all goodness and also the closest I've seen to a succinct
> definition of what's new in ACTN.  Perhaps it can serve as the
> foundation of a short paragraph defining what it is for inclusion in the
> intro of -01 of the WG draft.
>
> Your answer is much broader than the above definition ("logically
> centralized" control model), which is fine, but also highlights a bit
> why we're trying to frame the work now as it is being formally brought
> into the WG.
>
> Thanks,
> Lou
>> Regards,
>> igor
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Teas [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Lou Berger
>> Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 1:44 PM
>> To: Leeyoung <[e-mail]>; Doolan, Paul (Coriant - US/Irving) <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: [e-mail]; TEAS WG <[e-mail]>; Daniele Ceccarelli <[e-mail]>; Varma, Eve L (Eve) <[e-mail]>; Vishnu Pavan Beeram <[e-mail]>
>> Subject: Re: [Teas] Poll on draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements-01 a WG documents
>>
>>
>> Young,
>>
>> Daniele closed his slides by talking about overall status.  So the comments were both about the document and more general.  I listened to the (painful) audio and added a few more notes:
>> see
>> http://etherpad.tools.ietf.org:9000/p/notes-ietf-93-teas?useMonospaceFont=true
>>
>> also perhaps you can answer the following:
>>
>> - What about the requirements in the current draft is limited to 'ACTN'?
>>
>> or said another way:
>>
>> - Abstraction and Control are both things supported by today's standards, so what's new from the requirements perspective?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Lou
>> On 9/18/2015 12:47 PM, Leeyoung wrote:
>>> Hi Lou,
>>>
>>> Actually this is meeting minutes on the ACTN Framework draft presentation and we agreed to include some gap analysis of some type. 
>>> We will come up with that topic in the upcoming revision on this. I thought you are going to poll the framework draft soon. 
>>>
>>> In regards to the requirements draft, what Paul is quoting is correct and the current requirement draft incorporated your comments on impact on YANG and others. 
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>> Young
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Lou Berger [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>> Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 11:36 AM
>>> To: Doolan, Paul (Coriant - US/Irving)
>>> Cc: Varma, Eve L (Eve); Daniele Ceccarelli; Vishnu Pavan Beeram; 
>>> [e-mail]; TEAS WG
>>> Subject: Re: [Teas] Poll on draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements-01 a WG 
>>> documents
>>>
>>> Paul,
>>>
>>> On 9/18/2015 11:33 AM, Doolan, Paul (Coriant - US/Irving) wrote:
>>>> Hi Lou,
>>>>
>>>>> The comments were made in Pargue (publicly
>>>> So that we're all on the same page (Eve wasn't at the Prague meeting), what you are recorded in the minutes as having said with respect to draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements-01 is:
>>>>
>>>> Lou Berger: A good start on requirements, and notable section on impact
>>>>           on YANG but this section needs further development. I would also like
>>>>           to see more discussion on future requirements. For adoption, I think we
>>>>           need to polish the aforementioned sections.
>>> Also stated as related to this draft and the framework : 
>>>
>>>          Lou Berger: Understanding what the protocol extension requirements are
>>>           would be very helpful. The interconnected-te document went through a
>>>           similar process. Please look to focus your document in the context of
>>>           technologies that we have available, and its ok to have "this piece
>>>           is missing".
>>>           Daniele: Is it ok to keep that discussion (gap analysis) in this document?
>>>           Lou Berger: Yes
>>>           Young Lee: The document was intended to be used as a framework with
>>>           functional components. Is it ok?
>>>           Lou Berger: Yes, this is a complimentary to the interconnected-te
>>>           document. Please authors, consider the previous comment and see if you
>>>           can update the document.
>>>
>>> The minutes actually are  unfortunately a bit sparse (and the 
>>> recording of the chairs mic is really poor) and I did mention that 
>>> this would come up in the context of adoption.  Particularly missing 
>>> was the discussion on the work being an addition/complement to existing work by covering
>>> "logically centralized" TE solutions.   Both Daniele and Young seems to
>>> agree with these points. 
>>>
>>> If anyone feels up to listening to the minutes and updating the 
>>> minutes that would be great.
>>>
>>> Audio is at
>>> https://www.ietf.org/audio/ietf93/ietf93-congresshalli-20150722-1300.m
>>> p3
>>> and edits can be made to
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/teas/minutes?item=minutes-93-teas.html and we 
>>> can get the official minutes corrected from there.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Which is fine by me but does IMO qualify as advance warning of your current position. No "oh and by the way change the title" for example.
>>> The title isn't being change, the file name is. 
>>>
>>> Lou
>>>
>>>> pd
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 18, 2015, at 10:55 AM, Lou Berger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 09/18/2015 08:56 AM, Varma, Eve L (Eve) wrote:
>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I must agree with Daniele's points.   In reviewing the inputs re
>>>>>> draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements becoming a WG document, which 
>>>>>> resulted in its adoption as such, I don't recall any inputs other 
>>>>>> than "Support"; I didn't see "Support, but clarify.." or "Support, 
>>>>>> but change.."  Given this, I am truly surprised at the discussion that has now arisen.
>>>>> Eve,
>>>>>
>>>>> See my last message.  The comments were made in Pargue (publicly and 
>>>>> expanded upon privately), and I had a discussion with the Authors 
>>>>> via e-mail during the adoption period  -- in this brief e-mail 
>>>>> exchange I indicated that I decided to not impede adoption as I 
>>>>> believe the current contents of the document is a great starting point for the WG.
>>>>>
>>>>> I specifically didn't want the discussion on what is basically how 
>>>>> the "ACTN" *solution* fits in with the rest of IETF TE to impede the 
>>>>> adoption of what is essentially a generic TE requirements document.
>>>>>
>>>>>> While I have no real issue in changing Transport to TE in the 
>>>>>> document title to move this forward, though I don't see the issue 
>>>>>> with using the term Transport (which hasn't been considered solely 
>>>>>> L0/L1 for a long time), I hope that the authors would be able to 
>>>>>> move forward quickly to publish as a WG draft with essentially the same title.
>>>>> Changing the title is not yet on the table and would not occur in 
>>>>> the
>>>>> -00 rev of the document.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lou
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bes regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Eve
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *From:*Teas [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Daniele 
>>>>>> Ceccarelli
>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, September 18, 2015 8:38 AM
>>>>>> *To:* Vishnu Pavan Beeram
>>>>>> *Cc:* Doolan, Paul (Coriant - US/Irving); Lou Berger; 
>>>>>> [e-mail]; TEAS WG
>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Teas] Poll on draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements-01 a 
>>>>>> WG documents
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pavan,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please see inline.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BR
>>>>>> Daniele
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *From:*Vishnu Pavan Beeram [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>>>> *Sent:* venerdì 18 settembre 2015 14:05
>>>>>> *To:* Daniele Ceccarelli
>>>>>> *Cc:* Lou Berger; Doolan, Paul (Coriant - US/Irving); 
>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>; TEAS WG
>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Teas] Poll on draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements-01 a 
>>>>>> WG documents
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A few points to mull over and move the discussion along:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Fitting "ACTN" into the "TEAS" body of work:
>>>>>> Work focusing on "how TE networks can be abstracted and managed in 
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> controller(s) driven environment" is an obvious item of interest to 
>>>>>> the WG. And this is primarily where we believe the "ACTN" work can 
>>>>>> contribute; the requirements discussed in the document that just 
>>>>>> got adopted by the WG aligns well with this. The intent behind the 
>>>>>> name-change was to have something generic enough to capture what we 
>>>>>> want this work to be about. Note that this is just a requirements 
>>>>>> document and since this is the first document to be adopted in this 
>>>>>> realm, it is important to get the "naming" right now rather than 
>>>>>> later. "VN Controller" is perhaps not a great choice -- very much 
>>>>>> open to other choices that would capture the essence of the first statement above.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> */[DanCe] The IETF is contribution driven. If the WG contributed a 
>>>>>> draft related to a subset of what the chairs expect, it means that 
>>>>>> there is interest just in that subset. If the chairs wanted 
>>>>>> something generic enough they should have asked for a document 
>>>>>> generic enough (before the wg adoption), not call for the adoption 
>>>>>> of a document and then ask to change its scope. The authors are 
>>>>>> interested in writing ACTN requirements, which not only is a subset 
>>>>>> of what the chairs ask for but is also slightly different since 
>>>>>> we're not speaking just about nodes and links. /*
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Complementing existing TEAS work:
>>>>>> <draft-ietf-teas-interconnected-te-info-exchange> discusses the 
>>>>>> architecture for the exchange of TE information between 
>>>>>> interconnected TE networks in support of end-to-end TE path 
>>>>>> establishment. It discusses in great detail the notion of 
>>>>>> "abstraction in TE networks". Our sincere hope (belief rather) is 
>>>>>> that the <actn-requirements> document (and other <actn> related 
>>>>>> documents that get adopted by the WG) would be complementary to 
>>>>>> (/consistent with) the <interconnected-te-info-exchange> draft.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> */[DanCe] What does complementary mean? Complementary in the sense 
>>>>>> that interconnected TE is for multi-domain LSP establishment in 
>>>>>> distributed control plane and ACTN does the same for centralized 
>>>>>> one? ACTN has a broader scope. The multi domain and multi layer 
>>>>>> part can be seen as complimentary, but again ACTN is not just nodes 
>>>>>> and links, it includes services, VNF, network slices and so on./*
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Focus on the term "Controller":
>>>>>> One train of thought is to use this new work (conveniently 
>>>>>> facilitated by the induction of ACTN into TEAS) to focus solely on the "controller"
>>>>>> aspects (given the belief that non-controller aspects are 
>>>>>> adequately covered by existing solutions). Personally, I don't have 
>>>>>> a strong preference on whether the "naming" should reflect this or 
>>>>>> not (Danielle's latest suggestion - use "TE" in the ACTN acronym - 
>>>>>> is pretty close to what I personally would like it to be), but it 
>>>>>> is important to get some clarity on this "scoping" detail before zeroing in on any "name".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> */[DanCe] The scoping should have been made clear before the call 
>>>>>> for adoption. The authors scoped the draft as X and asked for the 
>>>>>> adoption of X and now they are requested to publish the draft as a 
>>>>>> starting point for Y. In 2 years we have put together use cases, an 
>>>>>> architecture and would have liked to start working on solutions for 
>>>>>> that, we'd like not to start from the beginning again. Please note 
>>>>>> the list of ACTN related drafts in TEAS (not to consider the 
>>>>>> expired ones still submitted as
>>>>>> draft-xxxxx-actn.)/*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> */ /*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/images/search-small.gif
>>>>>> <https://www.google.com/search?as_q=%22draft-klee-teas-actn-connect
>>>>>> ivity-multi-domain-02%22&as_sitesearch=mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/br
>>>>>> owse/teas/>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 	
>>>>>>
>>>>>> draft-klee-teas-actn-connectivity-multi-domain
>>>>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-klee-teas-actn-connectivity-multi-d
>>>>>> omain-02.txt>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 	
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -02
>>>>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-klee-teas-actn-connectivity-multi
>>>>>> -domain-02.txt>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 			
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2015-06-08
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/images/search-small.gif
>>>>>> <https://www.google.com/search?as_q=%22draft-kumaki-teas-actn-multi
>>>>>> tenant-vno-00%22&as_sitesearch=mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tea
>>>>>> s/>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 	
>>>>>>
>>>>>> draft-kumaki-teas-actn-multitenant-vno
>>>>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-kumaki-teas-actn-multitenant-vno-00
>>>>>> .txt>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 	
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -00
>>>>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kumaki-teas-actn-multitenant-vno-
>>>>>> 00.txt>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 			
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2015-07-06
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/images/search-small.gif
>>>>>> <https://www.google.com/search?as_q=%22draft-lam-teas-usage-info-mo
>>>>>> del-net-topology-01%22&as_sitesearch=mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/brow
>>>>>> se/teas/>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 	
>>>>>>
>>>>>> draft-lam-teas-usage-info-model-net-topology
>>>>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-lam-teas-usage-info-model-net-topol
>>>>>> ogy-01.txt>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 	
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -01
>>>>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lam-teas-usage-info-model-net-top
>>>>>> ology-01.txt>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 			
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2015-07-03
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/images/search-small.gif
>>>>>> <https://www.google.com/search?as_q=%22draft-lee-teas-actn-requirem
>>>>>> ents-01%22&as_sitesearch=mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas/>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 	
>>>>>>
>>>>>> draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements
>>>>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements-01.txt>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 	
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -01 
>>>>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements-01.txt
>>>>>> 			
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2015-07-27
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/images/search-small.gif
>>>>>> <https://www.google.com/search?as_q=%22draft-leebelotti-teas-actn-i
>>>>>> nfo-00%22&as_sitesearch=mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas/>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 	
>>>>>>
>>>>>> draft-leebelotti-teas-actn-info
>>>>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-leebelotti-teas-actn-info-00.txt>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 	
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -00 
>>>>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-leebelotti-teas-actn-info-00.txt>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 			
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2015-07-02
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/images/search-small.gif
>>>>>> <https://www.google.com/search?as_q=%22draft-leeking-teas-actn-prob
>>>>>> lem-statement-00%22&as_sitesearch=mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/
>>>>>> teas/>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 	
>>>>>>
>>>>>> draft-leeking-teas-actn-problem-statement
>>>>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-leeking-teas-actn-problem-statement
>>>>>> -00.txt>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 	
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -00
>>>>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-leeking-teas-actn-problem-stateme
>>>>>> nt-00.txt>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 			
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2015-06-09
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/images/search-small.gif
>>>>>> <https://www.google.com/search?as_q=%22draft-suzuki-teas-actn-multi
>>>>>> domain-opc-00%22&as_sitesearch=mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tea
>>>>>> s/>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 	
>>>>>>
>>>>>> draft-suzuki-teas-actn-multidomain-opc
>>>>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-suzuki-teas-actn-multidomain-opc-00
>>>>>> .txt>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 	
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -00
>>>>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-suzuki-teas-actn-multidomain-opc-
>>>>>> 00.txt>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 			
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2015-07-06
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/images/search-small.gif
>>>>>> <https://www.google.com/search?as_q=%22draft-xu-teas-actn-abstract-
>>>>>> alarm-report-00%22&as_sitesearch=mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/t
>>>>>> eas/>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 	
>>>>>>
>>>>>> draft-xu-teas-actn-abstract-alarm-report
>>>>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-xu-teas-actn-abstract-alarm-report-
>>>>>> 00.txt>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 	
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -00
>>>>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-teas-actn-abstract-alarm-repor
>>>>>> t-00.txt>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 			
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2015-07-06
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/images/search-small.gif
>>>>>> <https://www.google.com/search?as_q=%22draft-ceccarelli-teas-actn-f
>>>>>> ramework-00%22&as_sitesearch=mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas/
>>>>>> 	
>>>>>>
>>>>>> draft-ceccarelli-teas-actn-framework
>>>>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ceccarelli-teas-actn-framework-00.t
>>>>>> xt>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 	
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -00 
>>>>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ceccarelli-teas-actn-framework-00
>>>>>> .txt>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 			
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2015-06-15
>>>>>>
>>>>>> */ /*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> */ /*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Pavan
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 3:22 AM, Daniele Ceccarelli 
>>>>>> <[e-mail] 
>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lou,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is your concern mostly related to the "transport" word? In the last 
>>>>>> years the concept of transport evolved pretty much, mostly with 
>>>>>> transport SDN and it is no longer tied to the L0-L1 but it covers 
>>>>>> whatever mean used to transport IP. Young already pointed out what 
>>>>>> the draft aims to cover.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you're so strongly willing to change the name we could turn 
>>>>>> "Transport" into TE so that it becomes Abstraction and Control of 
>>>>>> TE networks. (this is my personal proposal, not shared by the other 
>>>>>> ACTNers)...and ACTN remains, but with the "broader" scope and it is 
>>>>>> "more" complementary to the interconnected TE.
>>>>>> The change of the file name is not just the change of a file name.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Daniele
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: Lou Berger [mailto:[e-mail] 
>>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>]
>>>>>>> Sent: venerdì 18 settembre 2015 02:51
>>>>>>> To: Doolan, Paul (Coriant - US/Irving)
>>>>>>> Cc: TEAS WG; [e-mail]
>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Teas] Poll on draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements-01 a 
>>>>>>> WG documents
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Paul,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9/17/2015 4:28 PM, Doolan, Paul (Coriant - US/Irving) wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hello Lou and Pavan,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> this instruction to change ACTN to VN-Controller seems a little 
>>>>>>>> high
>>>>>>> handed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I/we hear you. But...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Young Lee, Danielle and their co-authors have spent a long time 
>>>>>>>> working
>>>>>>> on this and creating mind share and name recognition for ACTN. I 
>>>>>>> know what it stands for as do audiences around the world to whom 
>>>>>>> the team have introduced the idea and from whom they have garnered support.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's fair, but from our perspective the IETF has been working TE 
>>>>>>> a lot longer than the term ACTN has been around, and that is the 
>>>>>>> context where this work fits.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As I stated at the last meeting, it's my (not to speak for Pavan, 
>>>>>>> but
>>>>>> think he
>>>>>>> agrees too)  option that this work is complimentary to the
>>>>>> interconnected-te
>>>>>>> particularly as it is more focused on the
>>>>>>> controller/non-fully distributed control plane approaches.   We think
>>>>>>> that covering such controller based TE models as very important 
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>> fills an
>>>>>>> important gap in the TE architecture.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right now, we (the WG) are just at the requirements stage and 
>>>>>>> those requirements apply quite broadly and that is what we (the 
>>>>>>> chairs) want to make clear by the name change.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In contrast I have absolutely no idea what a vn-controller 
>>>>>>>> requirements draft might be about and, if you persist with this 
>>>>>>>> renaming, it clearly makes no sense to make 'no
>>>>>>> other changes to the draft' since, at the very least, the (new) 
>>>>>>> title
>>>>>> needs
>>>>>>> explanation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's just a filename.  That said, we (chairs) are trying to 
>>>>>>> project
>>>>>> where the
>>>>>>> work will end up based on the WG consensus process.  Chairs have 
>>>>>>> changed names in the past and been right and sometimes wrong, but 
>>>>>>> in the end we have an RFC published with the title that represents 
>>>>>>> WG consensus and an RFC number.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I really think the draft should be adopted as (originally) named. 
>>>>>>>> If
>>>>>> you want
>>>>>>> to change the name then coming back to the WG with a clearly 
>>>>>>> articulated rationale and asking for its support would seem to me 
>>>>>>> to be a more
>>>>>> inclusive
>>>>>>> way to do things.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's not unusual for chairs to change names of a draft at adoption.
>>>>>>> Normally it goes without comment.  Perhaps if this wasn't the first 'actn'
>>>>>>> document it would have.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again, we're open to alternatives that capture the scope of the work.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lou
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> my 10cents,
>>>>>>>> pd
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sep 17, 2015, at 7:04 AM, Lou Berger wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>>>   The WG poll is closed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Authors,
>>>>>>>>>   Please republish draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements-01 as
>>>>>>>>> draft-ietf-teas-vn-controller-requirements-00 with only the date 
>>>>>>>>> and file name changed.
>>>>>>>>> Comments received (publicly and privately) should be discussed 
>>>>>>>>> and addresses in the -01 version.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Please note the file name change. Normally it's pretty formulaic.
>>>>>>>>> But this draft is a little different as it has evolved over time 
>>>>>>>>> to its current form and where we expect it to  go.  In 
>>>>>>>>> particular, we see this draft as a companion to the 
>>>>>>>>> 'interconnected-te' work and covering the various possible 
>>>>>>>>> controller-based TE models  (where the previous work was more focused on fully distributed control models).
>>>>>>>>> So we think a broader name warranted.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Again, no other changes to the draft should be made at this time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>>> Lou and Pavan
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2015 4:25 PM, Lou Berger wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is start of a two week poll on making
>>>>>>>>>> draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements-01 a TEAS working group document.
>>>>>>>>>> Please send email to the list indicating "yes/support" or 
>>>>>>>>>> "no/do not support". If indicating no, please state your 
>>>>>>>>>> technical reservations with the document.  If yes, please also 
>>>>>>>>>> feel free to provide comments you'd like to see addressed once 
>>>>>>>>>> the document is a WG
>>>>>>> document.
>>>>>>>>>> The poll ends September 16th
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>> Lou and Pavan
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> Teas mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> Teas mailing list
>>>>>>>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Teas mailing list
>>>>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas