Re: [Teas] 答复: Poll on draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements-01 a WG documents

[Vishnu Pavan Beeram <[e-mail]>]

> > Could someone (individually or collectively) provide a definition of
> ACTN that would be suitable for inclusion in a -01 of the WG requirements
> document on the topic?
>
> Any input on this would be much appreciated.
>

I thought the proposal texts from Igor and Xian were pretty good for a
start. Can the authors please build on this and put together some text that
succinctly defines ACTN (text that, hopefully, justifies using "ACTN" to
characterize the set of requirements that have been put forth)? Given all
the work that has gone into this (and all the documents that have been put
together so far) over the past couple of years, I would like to think that
this wouldn't take too long.

Regards,
-Pavan


>
> On 9/22/2015 11:39 AM, Varma, Eve L (Eve) wrote:
> > Hi Lou,
> >
> > Adding a definition seems a reasonable thing to do, considering all the
> discussion that's taken place.  From a procedure perspective, I assume the
> authors should first publish draft-teas-actn-requirements-00 as a WG draft
> without any changes to the content, and thereafter proceed from there to
> change “Transport” to “TE” within the draft and add a definition?
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Eve
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Lou Berger [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 10:31 PM
> > To: Daniele Ceccarelli; Leeyoung;
> [e-mail]
> > Cc: Varma, Eve L (Eve); Vishnu Pavan Beeram; TEAS WG
> > Subject: Re: [Teas] 答复: Poll on draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements-01 a WG
> documents
> >
> > Daniele, ACTN authors, All,
> >
> > On 9/21/2015 8:44 AM, Daniele Ceccarelli wrote:
> >> ...
> >> Looking forward to progress a fruitful thread and publishing the WG
> draft so work can progress.
> >>
> > Okay, let's take a step back here.
> >
> > The basic question is how does ACTN fit into the TEAS WG.
> >
> > Based on the discussions to date in the context of the WG, we thought we
> understood where we were going WRT ACTN, but perhaps not.  We also clearly
> expected to answer this in greater detail  as the WG  moved towards "ACTN"
> solutions.
> >
> > As has been pointed out earlier in the thread, having the first document
> on a topic without any definition of the topic is a bit awkward.  So
> perhaps now would be a good time to provide a definition of ACTN that can
> be added to the requirements document.
> >
> > Could someone (individually or collectively) provide a definition of
> ACTN that would be suitable for inclusion in a -01 of the WG requirements
> document on the topic?
> >
> > Also as mentioned before, it may be helpful to look at the MPLS-TP
> requirements document, RFC 5654, which provides an example of such a
> definition.
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Lou
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>