Re: [Teas] Proposed ACTN Definition Text (Re: 答复: Poll on draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements-01 a WG documents)

[Leeyoung <[e-mail]>]

Hi Igor,

I think both of your points are very good points. I personally would agree to add those terms to the text. 

Let me give it a try how to fit those wording to the current text and get back to you. Would you mind possibly using "scalable" instead of "large-scale"? It might be a bit easier to put the term in the right place. 

Thanks.
Young

-----Original Message-----
From: Igor Bryskin [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 11:29 AM
To: Lou Berger; Leeyoung; Vishnu Pavan Beeram
Cc: Varma, Eve L (Eve); Daniele Ceccarelli; TEAS WG; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [Teas] Proposed ACTN Definition Text (Re: 答复: Poll on draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements-01 a WG documents)

Hi Young,

I'd add "large-scale" at least in some places where you mention "TE networks". It is the large-scale aspect which points to/ requires new problems to be solved (totally agree with Lou), in particular, the hierarchical abstraction with no limit to the number of hierarchy levels and with both ends (top and bottom) open.

I'd also add:
"Conveying, managing and enforcing client policies with respect to the services provided by the network to said clients"

Regards,
 Igor

-----Original Message-----
From: Teas [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Lou Berger
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 8:36 AM
To: Leeyoung <[e-mail]>; Vishnu Pavan Beeram <[e-mail]>
Cc: Varma, Eve L (Eve) <[e-mail]>; Daniele Ceccarelli <[e-mail]>; TEAS WG <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: [Teas] Proposed ACTN Definition Text (Re: 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 non-process thread>



On 9/23/2015 1:21 PM, Leeyoung wrote:
> Hi Lou and Pavan,
>
> ...
>
> Here's the working version of what ACTN is based on the authors/contributors input and based on ACTN framework and problem statement drafts. 
>
> We'd welcome the input of WG to refine this as a concerted effort. 
>
> Thanks,
>
> Young (on behalf of all contributors)
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Abstraction and Control of TE Networks (ACTN) defines new methods and capabilities to support virtual network operations needed to orchestrate, control and manage multi-domain TE networks so as to facilitate network programmability, automation, efficient resource sharing, and end-to-end virtual service aware connectivity and network function virtualization services. These are summarized as follows. 
>
> -	Abstraction and coordination of underlying network resources to higher-layer applications and customers, independent of how these resources are managed or controlled, so that they can dynamically control their virtual networks by creating, modifying, monitoring, and deleting them.
>
> -	Multi-domain and multi-tenant virtual network operation via hierarchical abstraction of TE domains that facilitates multi-administration, multi-vendor, and multi-technology networks as a single virtualized network. This is achieved presenting the network domain as an abstracted topology to the customers via open and programmable interfaces. This allows for the recursion of controllers in a customer-provider relationship. 
>
> -	Orchestration of end-to-end virtual network services and applications via slicing of network resources to meet specific service, application and customer requirements.
>
> -	Adaptation of customer requests (made on virtual resources) to the physical network resources performing the necessary mapping, translation, isolation and, security/policy enforcement.
>
> -	Provision of a computation scheme and virtual control capability via a data model to customers who request virtual network services. Note that these customers could, themselves, be service providers. 
>

Great.  This is constructive.  Thank you.

WG,

Please review/comment/propose changes. 

I've dropped the text into an etherpad
(http://etherpad.tools.ietf.org:9000/p/teas-actn-def) to track the latest text.  Feel free to make changes there if you propose changes.

Lou

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lou Berger [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 1:35 PM
> To: Leeyoung; Vishnu Pavan Beeram
> Cc: TEAS WG; Daniele Ceccarelli; Varma, Eve L (Eve); 
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Teas] 答复: Poll on draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements-01 a 
> WG documents
>
> Young,
>
> On 9/22/2015 1:32 PM, Leeyoung wrote:
>> But not with the procedural violation! This would set a wrong 
>> precedent in IETF. I’d like to hold all of us accountable to the 
>> right procedure.
> I'm not sure to what you are referring.  The sole formal procedural requirement for issuing a draft is WG chair approval, at which time chairs select the filename.  Now it is certainly normal and good practice for  WG chairs to ensure support for the work via such things as polls, but this isn't procedurally required.  Also, chairs always evaluate the filename as part of our approval process, and while less common,  approve file names different than the form used by the individual draft.  Feel free to look around and you'll find a few examples.
>
> Now we'd really like to move the discussion to something a bit more than process and get a definition for inclusion in the -01 rev of the document.  -- which in our opinion will formally answer the question of if ACTN is just a (set of) solutions or something broader, and thereby inform the filename choice.
>
> Can you and the other authors help with that? 
>
> This question is open to all, so if you think you have a definition that's worth sharing, please chime in.
>
> Thanks,
> Lou
>
>
>
>


_______________________________________________
Teas mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas