Re: [Teas] Proposed charter update

"Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com> Tue, 09 October 2018 13:54 UTC

Return-Path: <agmalis@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 A43FA131326; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 06:54:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 E3rpUezrtUX0; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x843.google.com (mail-qt1-x843.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::843]) (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 A00D3130F6F; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x843.google.com with SMTP id l41-v6so1633994qtl.8; Tue, 09 Oct 2018 06:54:05 -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=04PuYjieF5LfmyISQ0moI6ihGvVclNz0+dAqA9chacg=; b=r3f7UgG8manlkCJWBDc14lnwuieGBw8Om3OqZhtfE1An5h7qT/82UiFLNIxTaDSIcQ qaXH9W+5CtIqiR6ZorkH2kvq+QZKocsVV7WRKdxXdLnZXcnqbePE6LqJvFCHwtgYhssq mFJZdEtfXm7dI4ah6lpcbV/Z+K9EmymfxvTJo40AHaOSx3NkdRC3/v6D8L9BxO7TGMKp yeNQ2mvM3iMGDy14+KD2y6acUvMlR+3TZ96tn8UtrpZJZK5sHmKg1YgF0tsSe9iUD+8g 3Y+6uty2R9yGobCfhsrwlezH6CSV20j6j9NzXhTPoH2PoUWm+5MWjFQye9AP6n2mzoiH mfXA==
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=04PuYjieF5LfmyISQ0moI6ihGvVclNz0+dAqA9chacg=; b=CijTQEd24MIE5c0m9TULYSM8wdp+zpFjNHhTEuphMBHjne7d6zRi1Kx+K+8ROmGX4M Nz4UzsMh/Wwoq+BthV9HhOfeLbu6qgHG197w+Yj8lUxF83iy1mqeX3pT5LBumj/mpyZE UTrte/rQxmVCAXgYnvtVlwTgydBxr5j/zHfSobLnkBqGNaq4EynH3eiBQJ4podAUt3aA fvLoBQzcGpoKo1lLIXhImi30HHELUhf5nwnJPwkYsWiei+VIovZhw0QHc6JbHrPqY5rJ a1KwQtLFk36UnAZwOVpbJP05/0+6voeewxM2Z9Y7JXlcuam9uJOCtmgG18ikPB76/J6C 8SxQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfohukg4bmcrcW3XRV9BdIThIYVRW2AkPZ64EQyqNOM7DBQ/Eo+9l SVDiCh+qO/MsAKU6oB5/L9eJi3xmerGzRAt90lQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV628xP+b/uerxc4ZeY5oisxl88dYp6+8rNYgBWlMj8BFkFT4N7pwCLv7fOt/xIwgIKPGsiui51TscrSSEqRvL4M=
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:2c1b:: with SMTP id d27-v6mr23671214qta.18.1539093244481; Tue, 09 Oct 2018 06:54:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CA+YzgTsRGs8tyn4d8jykTLtUNJ=bTXrsG5N+bDpu99mAUufx5g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+YzgTsRGs8tyn4d8jykTLtUNJ=bTXrsG5N+bDpu99mAUufx5g@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 09:53:53 -0400
Message-ID: <CAA=duU0QkbtECihN14kRyv=c9-GJ-i+Mt9T_YhfAkcVJ73uDQQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com>
Cc: teas@ietf.org, TEAS WG Chairs <teas-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001d16190577cc121e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/qilQQBjMLcbPC8MgQgWn_x4BXSc>
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: Tue, 09 Oct 2018 13:54:09 -0000

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
>