Re: [Teas] [CCAMP] Augmenting te-topo wasRe: rough notes from meeting

Italo Busi <> Mon, 28 September 2020 15:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8EFF3A1262; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 08:30:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KrfGAGP9BH_E; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 08:30:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE4A83A1261; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 08:30:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id A0E7BBC4A4658B075D22; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 16:30:42 +0100 (IST)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 16:30:42 +0100
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 17:30:42 +0200
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.01.1913.007; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 17:30:41 +0200
From: Italo Busi <>
To: Lou Berger <>, tom petch <>, TEAS WG <>
CC: "" <>, TEAS WG Chairs <>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] [Teas] Augmenting te-topo wasRe: rough notes from meeting
Thread-Index: AQHWlDd1ccDfBZU4gEiZMuJyOKQ4q6l+Hk6Q
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2020 15:30:41 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: it-IT, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_81b31df7222347918cc5f0542d417803huaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Teas] [CCAMP] Augmenting te-topo wasRe: rough notes from meeting
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2020 15:30:49 -0000

Tom, Lou,

The augmentation statements in WSON, as well in other technology-specific models in CCAMP, we are following the guidelines in section 6 and Appendix C of RFC8795 and augmenting the te-topology network-type.

The main reason is that these modules augments structures defined in te-topology.

If the issue is caused by the description, I am ok to update the description following Lou’s suggestion:

   "Introduce new network type for WSON topology.";
   "Introduce new te-topology network type for WSON topology.";


From: Lou Berger []
Sent: sabato 26 settembre 2020 15:47
To: tom petch <>om>; TEAS WG <>
Cc:; TEAS WG Chairs <>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] [Teas] Augmenting te-topo wasRe: rough notes from meeting

Hi Tom,

    sorry about the delayed response.  I think this a fair question for the WG as a whole (not me alone).

My view as a WG participant is in-line below.
On 9/22/2020 7:17 AM, tom petch wrote:


(borrowing a useful email to raise a fresh topic)

When te-topo is augmented with a new technology, there is a need to specify the new type.  Should this be an augment to


or an augment to


ie do you see the new technology sitting alongside te-topology or subordinate to it?

IMO it depends on the specifics of the augmentation.  If it is TE-specific and relying on general TE information, then subordinate makes sense to me.

wson-yang is in IETF last call and has just been revised and the presence container wson-topology is subordinate to te-topology while the description says augment network types.  What matters I think is that the approach is consistent.

I previously looks at this draft and it's augmentations looked correct to me.  I focused more on the tree representation rather than the actual model so missed this in the description.  Even so, I'm not sure I would have noticed as  it reads:

     augment "/nw:networks/nw:network/nw:network-types"

           + "/tet:te-topology" {


         "Augment network types to define WSON topology type.";

and it's the te-topology network type (container) that is being augmented.  It sounds like you'd like to see the description changed from "network types " to "te-topology network type".  I think this is a fine, and very minor, clarification.


 I looked at RFC8795 but could not see any guidance there.

Tom Petch

From: Teas <><> on behalf of Lou Berger <><>

Sent: 31 July 2020 14:04


Cc: TEAS WG Chairs

Subject: [Teas] rough notes from meeting


Thank you all for participating today! Please visit and verify that your

comments/discussions were appropriately captured.

Thank you!

Lou (and Pavan and Matt)

## TEAS Notes For IETF 108

## Session Information

                 TEAS Agenda For IETF 108

                 Version: Jul 26, 2020

                 Session 1: Friday, July 31, 2020 (UTC)

                 11:00-12:40 Friday Session I (UTC)

| |  |

| -------- | -------- |

|  Location:    | |

| Materials:    | |

| Meetecho:    | |

| Audio stream:    | |

| Jabber:    | |

| WG  ICS:    | |

| Session ICS:     ||

## Presentation       Start Time     Duration     Information

## 1    11:00    5    Title:    Administrivia & WG Status

 > Draft:

 > Presenter:    Chairs

## 2    11:05    5    Title:    WG Draft updates

 > Draft:    Many

 > Presenter:    Chairs

Adrian Farrel: draft-king-teas-applicability-actn-slicing has been respoon

Jie Dong: The plan is to move it to other documents (currently individual)

Eric Gray: The scope of the new documents are more narrow than the

original so removal is problematic

Vishnu Beeram: Please discuss the change on the list

Lou Berger: Please discuss with WG before (re)moving text from a WG


## 3    11:10    10    Title:    Yang model for requesting Path Computation

 > Draft:


 > Presenter:    Sergio Belotti

Lou Berger: Suggest discussing/reporting any tool issues with the tool

author -- (from jabber: report issue via

Rob Wilton (from Jabber):

   On the path computation presentation, and having looked at RFC 7950,

for issue #76 (1) and (2) I think that the pyang 2.1 behaviour is

correct.  I.e. don't include "input" and for (2), I think that this

isn't allowed. The key text being section 6.4.1 or RFC 7950

## 4    11:20    10    Title:    Yang model update

 > Draft:




 > Presenter:    Dhruv Dhody

Tarek Saad: Is the path computed by "template" in TE-Service mapping,

stateful in nature?

Dhruv Dhody: This is just the constraints and optimization criteria and

nothing to do with the statefulness of path.

Daniele Ceccarelli: This comes from the OSS layer, which doesn't care

about how it is provided via te tunnels, just that the service

characteristics are met

## 5    11:30    10    Title:    DT Intro, IETF Definition of Transport


 > Draft:


 > Presenter:    Jari Arkko + Reza Rokui

Actual Start Time: 11:42

## 6    11:40    10    Title:    Framework for Transport Network Slices

 > Draft:


     > Presenter:Eric Gray


Actual Start Time: 11:53

Daniele Ceccarelli: in ACTN we have defined the interface between MDSC

and CNC as a boundary between a customer and the operator. We are now

lacking of a reference point between the MDSC and another entity within

the operator. We have identified a similar issue in the context of POI.

On the MDSC role, I agree with the interpretation.

Lou Berger: Any objections to adoption?


     Please expect an adoption call on list.

## 7    11:50    10    Title:    Transport Network Slice YANG Data Model

 > Draft:

 > Presenter:    Xufeng Liu

Actual Start time: 12:10

## 8    12:00    10    Title:     A Yang Data Model for Transport Slice NBI

 > Draft:


 > Presenter:    Bo Wu

Actual Start Time: 12:18

(From Jabber) Vishnu Beeram: Note that the previous presentation ties

the modeling of a transport network slice to existing network topology

models while the current presentation focuses on the service view of a

slice. Please chime in with your views on these 2 approaches (either

here or on the list).. There seems to be a case being made (by both sets

of authors) to make room for both -- please discuss if you have any


Lou Berger: Please take comments/discussion to list

## 9    12:10    10    Title:    Network Slicing with Flexible Traffic


 > Draft:

 > Presenter:    Jeffrey Zhang

Actual Start Time: 12:26

Please take comments/discussion to list

## 10    12:20    10    Title:    Packet Network Slicing using Segment


 > Draft:

 > Presenter:    Ran Chen

Actual Start Time: 12:31

Please take comments/discussion to list

## 11    12:30    10    Title:    A YANG Data Model for MPLS-TE Topology

 > Draft:

 > Presenter:    Italo Busi

 > Actual Start Time: 12:36

Please take comments/discussion to list

## Adjourn    12:40



Teas mailing list<>


Teas mailing list<>