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

From: tom petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 11:17:42 +0000

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

Tom Petch

From: Teas <[email-masked]> on behalf of Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
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
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2020 09:47:05 -0400

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.

> 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: Italo Busi <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2020 15:30:41 +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:[email-masked]]
Sent: sabato 26 settembre 2020 15:47
To: tom petch <[email-masked]>; TEAS WG <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]; TEAS WG Chairs <[email-masked]>
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).

Lou

or an augment to

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.

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:

           + "/tet:te-topology" {

       description

Lou

Tom Petch

From: Teas <[email-masked]><mailto:[email-masked]> on behalf of Lou Berger <[email-masked]><mailto:[email-masked]>

Sent: 31 July 2020 14:04

To: TEAS WG

Cc: TEAS WG Chairs

All,

Thank you!

Lou (and Pavan and Matt)

## Session Information

                 TEAS Agenda For IETF 108

                 Version: Jul 26, 2020

| |  |

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

|  Location:    |

| WG  ICS:    |

| Session ICS:     |

document

stateful in nature?

characteristics are met

Slice

Actual Start Time: 11:42

Actual Start Time: 11:53

     <none></none>

Actual Start time: 12:10

Actual Start Time: 12:18

objections...

Engineering

Actual Start Time: 12:26

Routing

Actual Start Time: 12:31

## Adjourn    12:40

Teas mailing list

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

Teas mailing list

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