Subject: [Actn] Status and plans for ACTN

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 17:13:31 -0000

Hello again,

As promised here are some more thoughts on the progress of ACTN.

I had a call today with the BoF chairs: Sergio and Dhruv were also there. We
discussed the details of the interfaces between the ACTN components a bit more
because my main thrust is to understand what work needs doing in a protocol
sense.

My message is that I recognise the energy and use cases behind ACTN, but I do
not want to charter a working group to work on use cases and requirements. From
where I sit, that would be a huge waste of time and effort. We already
understand the use cases, so while it would be just fine to continue to work on
them, they are no longer a hurdle for forming a WG or for developing solutions.
What is more, the requirements work can be developed quickly and efficiently by
a small team and then discussed and reviewed on this mailing list.

The intention, therefore, is to take the current framework draft and:
- refine it to make the architecture clearer
   - there is at least the question of recursion to be dealt with
- expand on exactly what the client is asking for
   - is it "just" abstract topology and connectivity, or is it also 
      related to "services"?
- add a lot more detail to the description of the functional interfaces
    - what are the primitives?
    - what i the information carried on the primitives?

Young, Daniele, Sergio, and Dhruv already have some of this material in slides
and in notes as well as in their heads. So I'm hoping that it will not be a huge
effort for them to start to share this on the list and to add to the I-D.

I'm hoping that this will serve to make it much clearer what work is actually
involved in delivering ACTN. What is entirely new and needs the focus of a WG?
What is new but likely to be worked on in other WGs may be needing review and
guidance from an ACTN WG? What is a delta on work done in other WGs that needs
cooperative development? What already exists but needs an applicability
statement to demonstrate its use?

The answers to these questions will help us understand the value of a new
working group, and will form the basis of the deliverables and work items if one
is chartered.

Young and Daniele have promised to try to bring their thoughts to this list in
the form of emails and a revised I-D. I really hope that we can build on the
energy that was in the room in Honolulu by having active discussion of the
issues they raise and by getting detailed and constructive reviews (e.g. suggest
text!) of the drafts they post.

Thanks,
Adrian

---

From: Daniele Ceccarelli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 17:33:50 +0000

Thanks Adrian,

While waiting for the new text to come, please find at the following links the material Adrian is speaking about (published on the IETF91 data tracker server as POST MEETING material not to attach it to the mail).

8 - post BoF material - ACTN scenarios - PPT<http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/slides/slides-91-actn-11.pptx>
9 - post BoF material - ACTN requirements - DOC<http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/slides/slides-91-actn-12.doc>

Regarding the ACTN scenarios PPT please have a look particularly to slide 13, which tries to explain why the exchanged info is not just nodes and links but includes also services. This is also a differentiator between the info exchanged between the PNC-VNC and the CNC-VNC (let's not talk about different interfaces for a while, but just focus on the info exchanged between controllers).

Comments, feedbacks and most of all contributions to these two documents are highly appreciated and will be helpful for the improvements to the framework documents.

Many thanks

Daniele

> -----Original Message-----

> From: ACTN [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel

> Sent: giovedì 27 novembre 2014 18:14

> To: [email-masked]

> Cc: [email-masked]

> Subject: [Actn] Status and plans for ACTN

> discussed the details of the interfaces between the ACTN components a bit

> more because my main thrust is to understand what work needs doing in a

> protocol sense.

> My message is that I recognise the energy and use cases behind ACTN, but I

> do not want to charter a working group to work on use cases and

> requirements. From where I sit, that would be a huge waste of time and

> effort. We already understand the use cases, so while it would be just fine to

> continue to work on them, they are no longer a hurdle for forming a WG or

> for developing solutions.

> What is more, the requirements work can be developed quickly and

> efficiently by a small team and then discussed and reviewed on this mailing

> list.

> involved in delivering ACTN. What is entirely new and needs the focus of a

> WG?

> What is new but likely to be worked on in other WGs may be needing review

> and guidance from an ACTN WG? What is a delta on work done in other WGs

> that needs cooperative development? What already exists but needs an

> applicability statement to demonstrate its use?

> working group, and will form the basis of the deliverables and work items if

> one is chartered.

> issues they raise and by getting detailed and constructive reviews (e.g.

> suggest

> _______________________________________________

> ACTN mailing list

> [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>

> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/actn

---

From: Leeyoung <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 19:27:02 +0000

Hi all,

Echoed to Daniele's comment and attachment, the color scheme in the word document has the following classification:

Green - new to ACTN
Red- might be fulfilled by existing models/WGs (such as TEAS, CCAMP, PCE, etc.)
Blue- Between Green and Red (Not clear at this point)

This classification needs to be more refined especially with Green one into two sub categories:

Green A: No WGs are involved in this work and new WG is required
Green B: No WGs are involved in this work but work is being developed or about to be launched in other WGs.

In the next a couple of weeks, it is our desire to work on this requirement list and incorporate in the Framework document. We'd appreciate your active participation in this work.  We admit that the attached PPT and word documents are very rough and as such we'd anticipate many questions of the content. Please take your questions to the list.

Best regards,
Young & Daniele

From: ACTN [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Daniele Ceccarelli
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2014 11:34 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Actn] Status and plans for ACTN

Thanks Adrian,

Many thanks

Daniele