Subject: [Teas] Rough notes from today's session

From: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 19:49:27 -0400

> TEAS Agenda For IETF 101
> Version: Mar 15, 2018
>
> Monday, March 19, 2018 (GMT)
> 09:30 - 12:00 - Wdnesday Morning Session I
> Location:        Park Suite
>
> Slides:        https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/session/teas
> Etherpad:
http://etherpad.tools.ietf.org:9000/p/notes-ietf-101-teas?useMonospaceFont=true
> Meetecho:        http://www.meetecho.com/ietf101/teas
> Audio stream:
http://ietf101streaming.dnsalias.net/ietf/ietf1015.m3u
> Jabber:        xmpp:[email-masked]?join
>
> Available post session:
> Recording:        https://www.ietf.org/audio/ietf101/
> YouTube:        https://www.youtube.com/user/ietf/playlists
>
> #        Start Time        Information

> 0        9:30        10        Title:                Administrivia & WG
Status
>                         Draft:
>                         Presenter:        Chairs

Loa Anderson: the MPLS WG has not really done an extensive review and
discussion on draft-deshmukh-teas-rsvp-rmr-extension-00, the only
discussion was about the WG the work belongs to
Lou Berger: The chairs will discuss and get back to the WG (list) on next
steps
> 1        9:40        10        Title:                WG Draft updates
>                         Draft:                Many
>                         Presenter:        Chairs

Robin Li: regarding draft-ietf-teas-pcecc-use-cases, will progress after a
discussion among authors.

> 2        9:50        30        Title:                Yang Data Models -
TE/RSVP
>                         Draft:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-14
>                         Draft:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-yang-rsvp-08
>                         Draft:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-yang-rsvp-te-03
>                         Presenter:        Tarek Saad
Lou Berger: make sure all models should properly indicate references to the
RFC defining the function being controlled, particularly when the function
is not defined in the base RFC.  In the case where there is no good
reference, please ensure there is a description adequate for someone less
familiar with the function to understand what is being controlled.
Tarek Saad: Good points. Will do.
Lou Berger: want to wrap it up soon. When split, make sure that there are
generic pieces clearly split from non-generic ones. Please review the
documents . As soon as the split is done, the document will go to early YANG
doctor review.

> 3        10:20        10        Title:                TE Topology and
Tunnel Modeling for Transport Networks
>                         Draft:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-te-topo-and-tunnel-modeling-01
>                         Presenter:        Igor Bryskin

Igor Bryskin: I would encourage people to raise more questions for
definitions/clarifications. We are also looking for additional usefule use
cases that  could be added to the document.
Lou Berger: make sure read this document and raise any
questions/clafication between the TE-topo model and TE-tunnel model.
Igor Bryskin:  We are introducing new concepts in addition to strict
inclusion like desirable inclusion and optimization, especially on
client-specific optimization criteria.
Fatai Zhang: I think this draft is very useful for vendors and operators.
In CCAMP we have another similar draft on Transport NBI
(draft-ietf-ccamp-transport-nbi-app-statement). The auhtors of these two
drafts need more discussion and coordination.
Igor Bryskin: I am participating and providing input to the CCAMP Transport
NBI design team and the DT members are also active and raising questions on
the TEAS TE work so we are coordinating.
Lou Berger: between CCAMP Transport-NBI document and TEAS document (this
document), we're relying on authors of the two document coordinate each
other so that proper material is in each  document. If they decide it's
best to combine the documents, we'll work with CCAMP chairs to ensure that
our process can support such.
> 4        10:30        10        Title:                Yang model for
requesting Path Computation
>                         Draft:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-yang-path-computation-01
>                         Presenter:        Sergio Belotti

Lou Berger: this is another document to look at. It is a good time to take
a look at it and provide comments to the list.

> 5        10:40        10        Title:                ACTN YANG
applicability
>                         Draft:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-actn-yang-01
>                         Presenter:        Daniele Ceccarelli
Lou Berger: there is some disagreement on how to support the  CMI, to use
the VN yang and service mapping models or existing models (TE topo/tunnel,
etc. ) CMI. It would be helpful if we can have others comment on this.
Daniele Ceccarelli: we have made steps forward in the ACTN VN YANG. Dhruv
will explain next.

> 6        10:50        10        Title:                ACTN VN YANG
>                         Draft:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lee-teas-actn-vn-yang-12
>                         Presenter:        Dhruv Dhody

> 7        11:00        10        Title:                ACTN TE Service
Mapping
>                         Draft:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lee-teas-te-service-mapping-yang-06
>                         Presenter:        Young Lee/Guiseppe Fioccola

Parviz Yegani: Is there an overlap between these IETF models and the MEF
LSO interfaces?
Young Lee: MEF LSO has LEGATO but not yet data models. MEF is currently
working on information model. We can provide the YANG model for MEF.
Jeff:MEF models are not open to those who are not participating to MEF
Pavan: Just to make sure we work this in a generalized approach, or is it
explicitly related with ACTN? (Young: this is not under ACTN umbrella)
Dhruv: this model is applicable to the CMI, in the device model we need to
map the VRF to a Tunnel but this would be a different model

<Igor, Adrian, Jeff spoke: ***need to be captured**>
Adrian: it would be possible that a service request can be turned to a TE
request; while in the next iteration the TE request is becoming another
service request. It would be useful if this recursion can be included and
supported.
Young: Agree. Our scope is the CMI as the starting point from LxSM to be
able to TE underlay without having to see all detailed layers so that
customer would be able to see how their services are performing in a closed
loop on an end-to-end level. This model basically provides this
capability.

> 8        11:10        10        Title:                Use Cases for SF
Aware Topology Models
>                         Draft:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bryskin-teas-use-cases-sf-aware-topo-model-02
>                         Presenter:        Igor Bryskin

Tarek: can SF not be an attribute of node (switch/route)?
Igor: Node here could mean an abstract node that could be e.g., a data
center abstracted as node attachement. Node is not necessarily a switch or
router.
Fatai Zhang: is it applicable to transport networks, such as WSON and OTN?
Igor: Yes, there are use cases, such as 3R;
Fatai: could you please add into draft (Yes)
Himanshu Shah: Service constraints are modeled here? How Firewall
utilization affect topology model? Is this a part of the scope?
Igor: This is a good point, we have not considered service constraintes in
our model. It is a good idea to separate TE resources and service
constraints.
Parviz Yegani: have you considered the info model, as SF is different from
network model, an info model may be useful than a data model.
Lou Berger: This is use-case document, Is this useful? (reasonable number)
How many think this work is good foundation for the WG? (same number)?
Igor: prefer to have simple models as it faces the client.
Lou Berger: we need to speficy the use case first and then solution.
Jeff: it's different between network-driven application and
application-driven network.
Lou: we should determine whether the WG want to work on this type of
solution.

Lou: how many support to work on this type of solution? <a reasonable
number>
Lou: how many think this document is the good place to start? <a reasonable
number>
Lou: how many has read this document ? <slightly more>

> 9        11:20        10        Title:                SF Aware TE
Topology YANG Model
>                         Draft:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bryskin-teas-sf-aware-topo-model-01
>                         Presenter:        Igor Bryskin
No presentation/combined with previous topic.

> 10        11:30        20        Title:                Framework for
Traffic Engineering with BIER-TE forwarding
>                         Draft:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-eckert-teas-bier-te-framework-00
>                         Presenter:        Toerless Eckert
Lou Berger: early work but well aligned with other work in the working group
> 11        11:50        10        Title:                Hierarchy of IP
Controllers (HIC)
>                         Draft:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-li-teas-hierarchy-ip-controllers-00
>                         Presenter:        Dhruv Dhody
> Adjourn        12:00