Re: [Teas] WG adoption and draft naming process (Re: 答复: Poll on draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements-01 a WG documents)

[Leeyoung <[e-mail]>]

Hi Lou,

We can tone down what ACTN is as follows:

"ACTN is aimed to support virtual network operations... " 

I would read the above as set of requirements rather solutions if we were to change wording slightly. 

Then I would envision the requirements and solutions can be tied together under the umbrella of ACTN. 

Just my thought.

Regards,
Young





-----Original Message-----
From: Lou Berger [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 7:37 AM
To: Leeyoung; Vishnu Pavan Beeram
Cc: TEAS WG; Daniele Ceccarelli; Varma, Eve L (Eve); [e-mail]
Subject: WG adoption and draft naming process (Re: [Teas] 答复: Poll on draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements-01 a WG documents)

NOTE:I've changed the title so that we can keep separate process discussion from the definition discussion.  Please keep comments limited to the appropriate thread so folks (like Adrian) that don't care about the process can ignore it.

<This is the process thread>

On 9/23/2015 1:21 PM, Leeyoung wrote:
> Hi Lou and Pavan,
>
> OK, I think we are converging. I personally have not seen any cases where WG chairs demanded the name change of the adopted work, but this may have been limited to my own experience. 

Yes. It must be.  Perhaps because (a) it isn't an every day occurrence, and (b)  I've never seen a set of authors balk to this level on a name change -- in fact I can't recall *ever* seeing authors protest a change by a chair.

For examples, take a look at the replaced by section of http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ccamp/

Another good example is draft-giacalone-ospf-te-express-path which was replaced by draft-ospf-te-metric-extensions 

If you/anyone else has questions about WG draft adoption process -- please ask them by replying to this thread.  It seems that there a more than a few confused on this.

> ...

WRT the draft filename:

To me the definition still reads as ACTN is a set of solutions (i.e., = "new methods and capabilities to support virtual network operations") . 
While this understanding lead us to name the requirements draft independently from the solution in an attempt to highlight why the requirements don't apply to existing work, perhaps it would be fine to tie the two directly together -- I'll talk off line with Pavan.
Either way, vn-orchestration or vn-operation would be/have been a better choice than vn-controller.

Lou