Re: [Teas] Proposed charter update
Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com> Wed, 10 October 2018 01:35 UTC
Return-Path: <vishnupavan@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 C3BB7130E44; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 18:35:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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] 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 NAM-xKNucx8l; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 18:35:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pl1-x62a.google.com (mail-pl1-x62a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62a]) (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 C72D0130E3D; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 18:35:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pl1-x62a.google.com with SMTP id az3-v6so1692198plb.4; Tue, 09 Oct 2018 18:35:32 -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=4Tw7ExW5g/ubSIst94RJuxJHB84VDdkoT6EUxrNrOWc=; b=ND56hdLrJE4bcjl5FvSrcDx3qNS5YK/3lcvGeJ4OKUmoWpNeYt0Jtc9jXqR6kGPfM2 jMjwcKihP9u6OK9h4ifI83g5qABGJTeOVHkXS305j3JF5vP9feL8RKyMoMjcAl5KC0wr cFe45132eWltMtEwnMUFfnWofbw2NGPx2zx3un8CBkHzeSpnbzXS/dVYUw0dJebnf+uA uZ2O2nDcc90UmhHS4N0jqlytelzQgcZfOcxh/90XjRmn2/EFNHUiyKuzV3wl1Jf8h2X2 irniUI39CCv7pSH/vwK8VogQ2j9hqzWoMzxB3kUU0npkkl6kg+tYT1MV+PVZF6nQcUy2 DmsA==
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=4Tw7ExW5g/ubSIst94RJuxJHB84VDdkoT6EUxrNrOWc=; b=qSo8r96/piIC/K9zP8kcnfmBgSOPkfuve/SZxBD9o2tzvtob1jgetnCDJ+g14YOj+Y eRP1q56BcCvlrDvrEeYt9ib6v4iIMj3w4DYzjvbyLRIeNEro3WUR+kI3HIUhyzLrsUtt 8ENWTFxUhRh58h+KtNx21KyUbBSpnvKxXWXcPACf8r6HIt7E8JUtIF+Zms6Z/1oRhL9r +vr/eCyeLFigWqsBKelgk/KIWOyWQc44n+j8CmtZaapydd7BUcYhcO94taJXkS0gCZoy JrwXIe4Bku4Uv7VVj50Irh4BeI2aIAm2U0cWPvPVMnVcbpxEEYeVRx9eybvsIR2msvG7 k+IA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfog2lfXxGL4qUbIQXDi9hTiSJ/KylJ5haJ5GMMOnef7d+kyJUgQ6 ONlaN0/rMTmqPxpbz/sTUu//WL43WR9LuTwWMAQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV61esdSgRwFkNGfiZg5tnN3EMrGJ4pi3yX+eN5KD2dIQRf52rrM1eDPsXSbebjsTYoYRbe+hje08R2+TumNWAP4=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:3324:: with SMTP id a33-v6mr31007875plc.208.1539135332159; Tue, 09 Oct 2018 18:35:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CA+YzgTsRGs8tyn4d8jykTLtUNJ=bTXrsG5N+bDpu99mAUufx5g@mail.gmail.com> <CAA=duU0QkbtECihN14kRyv=c9-GJ-i+Mt9T_YhfAkcVJ73uDQQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAA=duU0QkbtECihN14kRyv=c9-GJ-i+Mt9T_YhfAkcVJ73uDQQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2018 21:35:20 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+YzgTtHh+MUZjvCCP6W7k=+QUgv+==T04v4Tp1bEOH_XS7ZaQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>
Cc: TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>, TEAS WG Chairs <teas-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000bc14820577d5de8b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/qCGf30rBfk5GUuiZrqs54O81zg4>
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: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 01:35:36 -0000
Andy, Hi! Thanks for the comments! We do have a couple of TEAS WG documents that are of interest to the SFC WG. The Google doc has been updated to reflect the changes. Regards, -Pavan On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 9:54 AM Andrew G. Malis <agmalis@gmail.com> wrote: > Pavan and Lou, > > The proposed update looks good, especially with the inclusion of DetNet. > However, support for DetNet should be more general than just support for > "use cases", which could be interpreted to be limited to those in the > forthcoming DetNet Use Cases RFC. Rather, how about: > > - With the DetNet WG on mechanisms (YANG models and protocols) to > support the DetNet architecture and forwarding plane. > > Also, something else occurs to me that is somewhat more speculative and > may actually not fit, but I'll mention it anyway. While SFC doesn't require > traffic engineering in terms of bandwidth guarantees, it does require the > ability to establish constrained (policy-based) paths in terms of the > ordering of nodes for a particular flow or chain, and TEAS certainly has a > lot of experience with signaling protocols to establish constrained paths. > So perhaps there's some coordination with the SFC WG that may make sense > there. Just a thought. > > Cheers, > Andy > > > > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 2:49 AM Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com> > 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_document_d_1l5y3nH3KmOQbHOMp-5FRFm1SK5riS5qi1klve-2D-2DkyUbSU_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwIDaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=CFHVfW0WsgxSqM6wTJiWE5evUJAdlUl1fm7E0WVbiS8&m=6pI1yDFJYCLr4YBDXOEJFxWzJQMmsW5q1X0ic60qgM4&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] Proposed charter update Vishnu Pavan Beeram
- Re: [Teas] Proposed charter update Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [Teas] Proposed charter update Lou Berger
- Re: [Teas] Proposed charter update Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [Teas] Proposed charter update Vishnu Pavan Beeram
- Re: [Teas] Proposed charter update Lou Berger
- [Teas] 答复: Proposed charter update Aijun Wang
- Re: [Teas] Proposed charter update Dhruv Dhody
- Re: [Teas] 答复: Proposed charter update Lou Berger
- Re: [Teas] Proposed charter update Lou Berger
- Re: [Teas] Proposed charter update Dhruv Dhody
- [Teas] 答复: 答复: Proposed charter update Aijun Wang
- Re: [Teas] 答复: 答复: Proposed charter update Lou Berger
- Re: [Teas] 答复: 答复: Proposed charter update Aijun Wang
- Re: [Teas] Proposed charter update Lou Berger
- [Teas] 答复: Proposed charter update Dongjie (Jimmy)