Re: [Teas] Proposed charter update

Vishnu Pavan Beeram <> Wed, 10 October 2018 01:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3BB7130E44; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 18:35:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NAM-xKNucx8l; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 18:35:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C72D0130E3D; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 18:35:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 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;; 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;; 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: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 21:35:20 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: "Andrew G. Malis" <>
Cc: TEAS WG <>, TEAS WG Chairs <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000bc14820577d5de8b"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Proposed charter update
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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.


On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 9:54 AM Andrew G. Malis <> 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 <>
> 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:
>> 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