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

Italo Busi <Italo.Busi@huawei.com> Mon, 28 September 2020 15:30 UTC

Return-Path: <Italo.Busi@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8EFF3A1262; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 08:30:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KrfGAGP9BH_E; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 08:30:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE4A83A1261; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 08:30:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml713-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id A0E7BBC4A4658B075D22; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 16:30:42 +0100 (IST)
Received: from fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.33) by lhreml713-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.64) 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 fraeml715-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.34) by fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.33) 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 fraeml715-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.206.15.34]) by fraeml715-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.206.15.34]) with mapi id 15.01.1913.007; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 17:30:41 +0200
From: Italo Busi <Italo.Busi@huawei.com>
To: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, tom petch <ietfa@btconnect.com>, TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>
CC: "ccamp@ietf.org" <CCAMP@ietf.org>, TEAS WG Chairs <teas-chairs@ietf.org>
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: <81b31df7222347918cc5f0542d417803@huawei.com>
References: <881740c6-5e91-047b-c084-ba5f004e6f09@labn.net> <DB7PR07MB5340342789AE575F32826BD0A23B0@DB7PR07MB5340.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <933f2356-7a41-9710-5568-c03c691c816d@labn.net>
In-Reply-To: <933f2356-7a41-9710-5568-c03c691c816d@labn.net>
Accept-Language: it-IT, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.47.85.206]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_81b31df7222347918cc5f0542d417803huaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/zsVG1Kq6shW5OI9-fOco98ZfJ8g>
Subject: Re: [Teas] [CCAMP] Augmenting te-topo wasRe: rough notes from meeting
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <teas.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas/>
List-Post: <mailto:teas@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=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:

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

Italo

From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net]
Sent: sabato 26 settembre 2020 15:47
To: tom petch <ietfa@btconnect.com>om>; TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>
Cc: ccamp@ietf.org; TEAS WG Chairs <teas-chairs@ietf.org>
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:

Lou

(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

networks/network/network-types/te-topology

or an augment to

networks/network/network-types

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" {

       description

         "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.

Lou





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



Tom Petch



From: Teas <teas-bounces@ietf.org><mailto:teas-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net><mailto:lberger@labn.net>

Sent: 31 July 2020 14:04

To: TEAS WG

Cc: TEAS WG Chairs

Subject: [Teas] rough notes from meeting



All,



Thank you all for participating today! Please visit

https://codimd.ietf.org/notes-ietf-108-teas?both 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:    |

https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/108/floor-plan?room=room-6 |

| Materials:    | https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/108/session/teas |

| Meetecho:    | http://www.meetecho.com/ietf108/teas |

| Audio stream:    | http://mp3.conf.meetecho.com/ietf/ietf1086.m3u |

| Jabber:    | http://jabber.ietf.org/logs/teas |

| WG  ICS:    |

https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/upcoming.ics?filters=teas |

| Session ICS:     |

https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/108/session/28181.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

document



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

 > Draft:

 > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-yang-path-computation-10

 > Presenter:    Sergio Belotti



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

author -- (from jabber: report issue via https://github.com/mbj4668/pyang)

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:

 > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-te-service-mapping-yang-04

 >

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-actn-pm-telemetry-autonomics-03

 > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang-09

 > 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

Slice

 > Draft:

 > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nsdt-teas-transport-slice-definition-03

 > Presenter:    Jari Arkko + Reza Rokui

Actual Start Time: 11:42





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

 > Draft:

 > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nsdt-teas-ns-framework-04

     > 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?

     <none></none>

     Please expect an adoption call on list.





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

 > Draft:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-liu-teas-transport-network-slice-yang-01

 > Presenter:    Xufeng Liu

Actual Start time: 12:10





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

 > Draft:

 > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wd-teas-transport-slice-yang-02

 > 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

objections...

Lou Berger: Please take comments/discussion to list



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

Engineering

 > Draft:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zzhang-teas-network-slicing-with-flex-te-00

 > Presenter:    Jeffrey Zhang

Actual Start Time: 12:26



Please take comments/discussion to list



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

Routing

 > Draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-peng-teas-network-slicing-03

 > 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:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-busizheng-teas-yang-te-mpls-topology-00

 > Presenter:    Italo Busi

 > Actual Start Time: 12:36



Please take comments/discussion to list



## Adjourn    12:40

 >









_______________________________________________

Teas mailing list

Teas@ietf.org<mailto:Teas@ietf.org>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas



_______________________________________________

Teas mailing list

Teas@ietf.org<mailto:Teas@ietf.org>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas