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

[Daniele Ceccarelli <[e-mail]>]

Lou,

Is your concern mostly related to the "transport" word? In the last years the concept of transport evolved pretty much, mostly with transport SDN and it is no longer tied to the L0-L1 but it covers whatever mean used to transport IP. Young already pointed out what the draft aims to cover.

If you're so strongly willing to change the name we could turn "Transport" into TE so that it becomes Abstraction and Control of TE networks. (this is my personal proposal, not shared by the other ACTNers)...and ACTN remains, but with the "broader" scope and it is "more" complementary to the interconnected TE.
The change of the file name is not just the change of a file name. 

Daniele

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lou Berger [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: venerdì 18 settembre 2015 02:51
> To: Doolan, Paul (Coriant - US/Irving)
> Cc: TEAS WG; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Teas] Poll on draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements-01 a WG
> documents
> 
> 
> Paul,
> 
> On 9/17/2015 4:28 PM, Doolan, Paul (Coriant - US/Irving) wrote:
> > Hello Lou and Pavan,
> >
> > this instruction to change ACTN to VN-Controller seems a little high
> handed.
> 
> I/we hear you. But...
> 
> > Young Lee, Danielle and their co-authors have spent a long time working
> on this and creating mind share and name recognition for ACTN. I know what
> it stands for as do audiences around the world to whom the team have
> introduced the idea and from whom they have garnered support.
> 
> That's fair, but from our perspective the IETF has been working TE a lot
> longer than the term ACTN has been around, and that is the context where
> this work fits.
> 
> As I stated at the last meeting, it's my (not to speak for Pavan, but think he
> agrees too)  option that this work is complimentary to the interconnected-te
> particularly as it is more focused on the
> controller/non-fully distributed control plane approaches.   We think
> that covering such controller based TE models as very important and fills an
> important gap in the TE architecture.
> 
> Right now, we (the WG) are just at the requirements stage and those
> requirements apply quite broadly and that is what we (the chairs) want to
> make clear by the name change.
> 
> > In contrast I have absolutely no idea what a vn-controller
> > requirements draft might be about and,
> 
> > if you persist with this renaming, it clearly makes no sense to make 'no
> other changes to the draft' since, at the very least, the (new) title needs
> explanation.
> 
> It's just a filename.  That said, we (chairs) are trying to project where the
> work will end up based on the WG consensus process.  Chairs have changed
> names in the past and been right and sometimes wrong, but in the end we
> have an RFC published with the title that represents WG consensus and an
> RFC number.
> 
> > I really think the draft should be adopted as (originally) named. If you want
> to change the name then coming back to the WG with a clearly articulated
> rationale and asking for its support would seem to me to be a more inclusive
> way to do things.
> 
> It's not unusual for chairs to change names of a draft at adoption.
> Normally it goes without comment.  Perhaps if this wasn't the first 'actn'
> document it would have.
> 
> Again, we're open to alternatives that capture the scope of the work.
> 
> Lou
> 
> > my 10cents,
> > pd
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sep 17, 2015, at 7:04 AM, Lou Berger wrote:
> >
> >> All,
> >>    The WG poll is closed.
> >>
> >> Authors,
> >>    Please republish draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements-01 as
> >> draft-ietf-teas-vn-controller-requirements-00 with only the date and
> >> file name changed.
> >> Comments received (publicly and privately) should be discussed and
> >> addresses in the -01 version.
> >>
> >> Please note the file name change. Normally it's pretty formulaic.
> >> But this draft is a little different as it has evolved over time to
> >> its current form and where we expect it to  go.  In particular, we
> >> see this draft as a companion to the 'interconnected-te' work and
> >> covering the various possible controller-based TE models  (where the
> >> previous work was more focused on fully distributed control models).
> >> So we think a broader name warranted.
> >>
> >> Again, no other changes to the draft should be made at this time.
> >>
> >> Thank you,
> >> Lou and Pavan
> >>
> >> On 9/2/2015 4:25 PM, Lou Berger wrote:
> >>> All,
> >>>
> >>> This is start of a two week poll on making
> >>> draft-lee-teas-actn-requirements-01 a TEAS working group document.
> >>> Please send email to the list indicating "yes/support" or "no/do not
> >>> support". If indicating no, please state your technical reservations
> >>> with the document.  If yes, please also feel free to provide
> >>> comments you'd like to see addressed once the document is a WG
> document.
> >>>
> >>> The poll ends September 16th
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Lou and Pavan
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Teas mailing list
> >>> [e-mail]
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
> >>>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Teas mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
> >
>