43 views
 owned this note
# Draft Minutes for the TEAS 111 WG Session Version Aug 13, 2021 ## Session Information Monday, July 26 2021 16:00-18:00 Session III (UTC-7) Time Zone Converter: https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html?iso=20210726T230000&p1=1440&p2=tz_pt Materials: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/111/session/teas Note taking: https://codimd.ietf.org/notes-ietf-111-teas Meetecho: https://meetings.conf.meetecho.com/ietf111/?group=teas&short=&item=1 Audio stream: http://mp3.conf.meetecho.com/ietf111/teas/1.m3u Jabber: xmpp:teas@jabber.ietf.org?join WG ICS: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/upcoming.ics?filters=teas Session ICS: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/111/session/28878.ics Available post session: Jabber log http://jabber.ietf.org/logs/teas YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMOrIBKRq7Y ## Slot# Start Duration Information ## #1 16:00 8 min Title: Administrivia & WG Status Draft: Presenter: Chairs Lou Berger: We are working to replace Matt Hartley as WG Secretary -- Thanks to Matt for his help over the years! John Scudder: (Regarding <draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-signaling-smp> which is with the AD) This is in my queue; intend to flush the queue soon. ## #2 (16:07) 16:08 7 min Title: WG Draft updates Draft: Many Presenter: Chairs No questions/comments ## #3 (16:12) 16:15 5 min Title: Applicability of Abstraction and Control of Traffic Engineered Networks (ACTN) to Packet Optical Integration Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-teas-actn-poi-applicability-03 Presenter: Daniel King No questions/comments ## #4 (16:17) 16:20 10 min Title: Overview and Principles of Internet Traffic Engineering Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-teas-rfc3272bis-12 Presenter: Adrian Farrel Tony Li: If this is meant to be a BIS draft, shouldn't the scope remain the same? Adrian Farrel: Certainly my question, but if WG decides it wants a wider scope RFC it stops being a BIS but rather a replacement with additions. Lou Berger: Comment: careful to not go beyond the scope of the IETF, not to cover techniques used in proprietary networks. Question: similar as Tony, what is not covered if we limit to IETF technologies? Adrian Farrel: I believe that Gyan's comment is not about applying TE to non-IETF technology, but about applying IETF technology in scopes other than "the Internet". Lou Berger: Are we expanding the scope or just clarifying the meaning of TE? Vishnu Pavan Beeram: You say that it is potentially a large lump of work; not clear what constitutes that "large lump"; if we limit ourselves to TE as catered to by IETF technologies, I think most of it is already covered in this document. So, it would be good to understand what that delta is and then make a call. Adrian Farrel: Action to follow on the list with Gyan. Daniel Voyer: for me TE is something the operator uses to make money with private network for customers, ex.: IPVPN. Not directly for over the larger internet. Adrian Farrel: Meaning of the term "Internet" changes over time. Should be able to work on some scoping language we can all agree on. ## #5 (16:28) 16:30 10 min Title: Framework for IETF Network Slices Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices-03 Presenter: Adrian Farrel Lou Berger: If we have trouble resolving on list we can schedule an interim. Adrian Farrel: Certainly, so far has not been necessary. Kireeti Kompella: In terms of service endpoints: when we talk about network slicing, the endpoint could be the 5g network or an end customer. Are you thinking that either of them, whomever, would have same slice request actions? Adrian Farrel: Are you asking in a 3gpp end to end network slice context? Kireeti Kompella: could be end customer 3gpp endpoint/slice, or an actual end customer like a service provider end customer. Could be both. The question is about "How I request a slice" / "what parameters are given"? Would it be the same regardless who the endpoint is? Adrian Farrel: No, there are different mechanisms (paper, YANG, API) but at a somewhat meta level it's the same procedure. Kireeti Kompella: Agree could be different ways of doing things; I believe you are saying that it doesn't matter who the customer is. Lou Berger: Out of time, take this good discussion to the list. ## #6 (16:42) 16:40 8 min Title: Applicability of Abstraction and Control of Traffic Engineered Networks (ACTN) to Network Slicing Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-king-teas-applicability-actn-slicing-10 Presenter: Daniel King Daniel King: Would like to determine which of the 3 options to take for the document. Adrian Farrel: I'm wary about the content of this document being moved into the network slices document. Document is large and may create an imbalance. Joel Halpern(chat): Option 2 seems like a good path. Lou Berger: We generally adopt and re-arrange later. So generally follow option 2. ## #7 (16:49) 16:48 8 min Title: Realizing Network Slices in IP/MPLS Networks Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet-03 Presenter: Tarek Saad Tarek Saad: Believe ready for adoption. Lou Berger: You mentioned few things regarding private discussions, would like to see it reflected on list before WG adoption. Also privately said document could use a bit more explaination/clarification of scope in the document text itself. Tarek Saad: Agreed, will make those agreements public on mailing list, happened last minute Lou Berger: To clarify, private discussions are good way to achieve moving forward on topics, would just like to have it reflected in the public list. Zhenbin(Robin) Li: There's several drafts with overlap that needs coordination, better to coordinate with the other drafts to refine the text to solve overlap. Second point, to accelerate network slicing work suggest an interim meeting ## #8 (16:57) 16:56 8 min Title: Scalability Considerations for Enhanced VPN (VPN+) Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-dong-teas-enhanced-vpn-vtn-scalability-03 Presenter: Jie Dong No time for questions or comments ## #9 (17:05) 17:04 6 min Title: Building blocks for Network Slice Realization in Segment Routing Network Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ali-teas-spring-ns-building-blocks-01 Presenter: Zafar Ali No time for questions or comments ## #10 (17:11) 17:10 8 min Title: IETF Network Slice Use Cases and Attributes for Northbound Interface of IETF Network Slice Controllers Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-contreras-teas-slice-nbi-05 Presenter: Luis M. Contreras - Was scheduled as #11, order swapped in presentation Lou Berger: Interested in any objections to adopting the document, please provide feedback on list ## #11 (17:19) 17:18 8 min Title: Instantiation of IETF Network Slices in Service Providers Networks Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-barguil-teas-network-slices-instantation-02 Presenter: Luis M. Contreras - Was scheduled as #10, order swapped in presentation Lou Berger: Great to hear if any interest in the document Daniel Voyer: I would be delighted to see more on your document you just presented. Obvious I'm coming from an operator perspective and these are hot topics. Lou Berger: Personally, I agree. ## #12 (17:26) 17:26 8 min Title: A Yang Data Model for IETF Network Slice NBI Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wd-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang-03 Presenter: Bo Wu Lou Berger: This topic has received a lot of interest, and need to decide with the WG if it's a good starting point. Not much time, so will definitely take to the list. ## #13 (17:34) 17:34 8 min Title: IETF Network Slice YANG Data Model Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-liu-teas-transport-network-slice-yang-04 Presenter: Xufeng Liu Vishnu Pavan Beeram: Do you see this as an NBI model or is it something that comes into play after the service request comes in? Xufeng Liu: I think the doc before (<draft-contreras-teas-slice-nbi>) discusses how we use this model and other models. Looking at the ACTN document, this model is equivalent to type 2 service. The other one (<draft-wd-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang>) is type 1. The model usage is also described in the ACTN VN yang draft, so they have the different scenarios and different setups, either in the middle of the network stack or at the top. Depends on use case. Vishnu Pavan Beeram: Okay. I guess if the consumer has some notion of the topology, then they should be able to use it. But that does not seem to be articulated in the document scope. Xufeng Liu: Sure, we will do that. There are several documents discussing the scope of type 2 - draft-contreras-teas-slice-nbi and ACTN VN Yang documents. ## #14 (17:42) 17:42 8 min Title: A VTN Network YANG Module Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wd-teas-vtn-network-yang-00 Presenter: Bo Wu No questions or comments ## #15 (17:48) 17:50 5 min Title: A YANG Data Model for MPLS-TE Topology Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-busizheng-teas-yang-te-mpls-topology-01 Presenter: Italo Busi Lou Berger: Is there any interest in the WG. Would like to know if anyone has any general interest in this topic, or do not think we should be working on this? <no response from WG> Discuss on the list probably best since end of the day. Italo Busi: We will ping the list. ## #16 (17:53) 17:55 5 min Title: Profiles for Traffic Engineering (TE) Topology Data Model Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-busi-teas-te-topology-profiles-02 Presenter: Italo Busi Scott Mansfield(Chat): This is good work. Something I would like to see more of in the TE-TOPO work is a more thorough explanation of the difference between supporting-node/supporting-link and overlay/underlay. Lou Berger: Similar as previous document, is there interest to work on this? Scott Mansfield: <pointed out own comment in chat> This is good stuff, would like to see some things clarified. Lou Berger: Appreciate the feedback ## Adjourn 18:00