Re: [Teas] 答复: 答复: Proposed charter update

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

Aijun,

Please see below...


----------
On October 16, 2018 9:47:35 PM "Aijun Wang" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi, Lou:
>
>
>
> I refines the related descriptions for clarification. Please see whether 
> they are more accurate or not.
>
>
>
> Best Regards.
>
>
>
> Aijun Wang
>
> Network R&D and Operation Support Department
>
> China Telecom Corporation Limited Beijing Research Institute,Beijing, China.
>
>
>
> 发件人: Lou Berger [mailto:[e-mail]]
> 发送时间: 2018年10月15日 22:50
> 收件人: Aijun Wang; 'Vishnu Pavan Beeram'; 'TEAS WG'; 'TEAS WG Chairs'
> 主题: Re: [Teas] 答复: Proposed charter update
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Aijun,
>    Thank you for the comments.  Please see below for responses in-line.
>
>
>
> On 10/11/2018 9:55 PM, Aijun Wang wrote:
>
> Hi, Vishnu and Lou:
>
>
>
> I have the following suggestions(inline) for the charter, please see 
> whether they are appropriate or not?
>
>
>
>
>
> Best Regards.
>
>
>
> Aijun Wang
>
> Network R&D and Operation Support Department
>
> China Telecom Corporation Limited Beijing Research Institute,Beijing, China.
>
>
>
> 发件人: Vishnu Pavan Beeram [mailto:[e-mail]]
> 发送时间: 2018年10月8日 14:50
> 收件人: TEAS WG; TEAS WG Chairs
> 主题: [Teas] Proposed charter update
>
>
>
> 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 
> <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=> 
> &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,
>
> [Aijun Wang]: Is it more suitable to say “non-domain specific” instead of 
> “non-technology specific” ? I guess the author may mention that RSVP-TE can 
> be used in packet and non-packet network here.
>
> How about:
>   The TEAS group is also responsible for standardizing RSVP-TE signaling 
>   protocol mechanism that are not related to a specific switching technology.
>
>
>
> [Aijun Wang]: Would it more clear to say “The TEAS group is also 
> responsible for standardizing RSVP-TE signaling protocol mechanism that can 
> be used in packet and non-packet(optical) network.” ?
>

For me, this less precise/clear so prefer either the original or revised 
versions.


>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
> [Aijun Wang]: Is it more concise here to say “Centralized control model are 
> also supported”?
>
>
> It may be more concise, but I think it is less clear so would prefer to 
> leave as is.
>
> [Aijun Wang]: From the context, we can know the sentence “RSVP-TE is the 
> signaling protocol used for both MPLS-TE and GMPLS.” mainly focuses on the 
> distributed control mode, then it is naturally to add the latter 
> description for “centralized control mode”.  My arguments here is that what 
> is the “logically centralized control models?”,  Is it redundant for us to 
> say it?

Strictly speaking a centralized controller translates to a single entity. 
There are many sdn architectures that use multiple controllers and the term 
logically centralized has been used to refer to these. Neither of the 
models use RSVP.

> I still think the following description is enough:
>
> “RSVP-TE is the signaling protocol used for both MPLS-TE and GMPLS. 
> Centralized models are also supported, e.g., via Abstraction and Control of 
> Traffic Engineered
> Networks (ACTN) and stateful-PCE.”
>

in my experience  when one just says centralized control, the distributive 
form of SDN control is overlooked or considered out of scope, so I think 
it's important to include that case.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>  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.
>
> [Aijun Wang]: Is there any situation that conform with ACTN principles but 
> don’t’ make use of PCE? Is it more generalized to say “This includes, for 
> example, both networks that include the use of PCE or not”?
>
> I don't believe ACTN requires use of PCE so I think the current text covers 
> such cases while the proposed revision does not.
>
> [Aijun Wang]: Ok, maybe I am confused by them.
>
This got revised based on discussion with Dhruv. Take a look at the new 
text, in email or on Google, and some comments if you have them


>
>
>
>
>    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.
>
> [Aijun Wang]: Is it more accurate to say “Functional specification of 
> extensions for routing (OSPF, ISIS) and for path computation protocol 
> (PCEP),..”
>
> I'm not sure, I really don't see any difference in the language.
>
> Rereading this that it should say "may also use RSVP-TE".
>
> [Aijun Wang] Here we mainly want to say TEAS WG is responsible for the 
> extension of the protocols that are related to the traffic engineering 
> requirements. PCE is not protocol, instead PCEP is the protocol needs to be 
> extended.
>

Ahh. Thank you for the clarification, I'll make the change.


>
>
>
>    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.
>
>
>
>
> [Aijun Wang]: Is it more accurate to say “Definition and extension of 
> management and security techniques for TE path and TE tunnels signaling….”, 
> instead of only mentioning the “RSVP-TE signaling”?
>
> This is a fair point.  How about "...for TP path and tunnel control"?
>
> [Aijun Wang]: OK. But it should be “…for TE path and tunnel control”.?

Yes, that was a typo.


>
>
>   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.
>
> [Aijun Wang]: Is it more generalized to replace “end-point protection” with 
> “TE-path and TE-tunnel protection”?
>
> These are just examples.  How about: "including, for example, ..."?
>
> [Aijun Wang]:  The revised description style will be more clear and extensible.
>


Thanks again
Lou

>
> Thank you again for the feedback!
> Lou
>
>
>
>
>
>    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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>
>
>