Framework for Abstraction and Control of TE Networks (ACTN)
draft-ietf-teas-actn-framework-15

[Ballot comment]
This is a well-written document, thanks.

In Section 2.2.1 the call out of utility companies seems a bit odd, since it's one specialized version of an enterprise.

[Ballot comment]
Hello,

thank you for this document. I have few questions for clarification:

* I'm not sure to understand your definition of Domain. You say:
Specifically within this document we mean a part of an operator's network that is under common management.
I'm not sure to understand what common means.  Also, you add a sentence after that but it didn't help me, in fact it confused me further.
Is it the managed entities which have something in common or is that the managing entities which have something in common? In the latter case what would be the common thing?

On that matter, I would suggest to capitalise the first letter of all the occurrences of domain which correspond to this definition (with the hope that all of them do).

Fig. 1 shows the Customer in relation with the Service Provider but Fig. 2 shows a boundary between Customer and Network Operator.
Are the NO and SP merged in Fig. 2?


You say:
  The PNC functions can be implemented as part of an SDN domain
  controller, a Network Management System (NMS), an Element Management
  System (EMS), an active PCE-based controller [Centralized] or any
  other means to dynamically control a set of nodes and that is
  implementing an NBI compliant with ACTN specification.
I have few comments:
which ACTN specification are you referring to ?
Usually when I read "comply with a specification", I expect to read a MUST/SHOULD in the same sentence. I can understand that you don't want to put a compliance requirement, but then you might want to use another word than "compliant".
NBI is not defined/expanded anywhere in the doc. In fact it's the only place where it appears. And in fact seeing it here while Fig. 2 talks about SBI only makes the reader uncertain. One way out of this would be to make it appear on Fig 2. because it's just the same interface, seen from the other direction.

You say:
  A PNC domain includes all the resources under the control of a
  single PNC.  It can be composed of different routing domains and
  administrative domains, and the resources may come from different
  layers.
Is that consistent with the definition of Domain? More precisely, is that consistent with the last sentence of the Domain definition which says:
  Network elements will often be grouped into domains based on
  technology types, vendor profiles, and geographic proximity.

4.1. MDSC Hierarchy
Can there be more than two levels in the MDSC hierarchy? In other words, can an MDSC-L for an MDSC-H be itself an MDSC-H for an MDSC-L?
As a side note, since I made the mistake while writing this, you have two occurrences of MSDC (instead of MDSC) in the doc .

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to everyone who worked on this document. Kudos in particular for the
outstandingly clear and easy-to-understand ASCII-art diagrams.

Please fix the following nits:

  ** There are 16 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest
    one being 7 characters in excess of 72.

  ** There are 2 instances of lines with control characters in the document.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for an easy to read draft. I have a couple of nits:

§1, last paragraph: The first sentence is kind of convoluted. Can it be broken into simpler sentences?

Figure 1: Is it possible to keep the figure all on the same page? The break makes it easy to miss the entire point, (i.e. why is this 3 tier; I only see 2 tiers)

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for the clear and easy-to-follow document!

I do have a few minor comments, below.


Section 3

Please expand OSS and NMS on first usage.

Section 3.2

  [...] The two functions of the MDSC,
  namely, multi-domain coordination and virtualization/abstraction are
  referred to as network-related functions while the other two
  functions, namely, customer mapping/translation and virtual service
  coordination are referred to as service-related functions.

Starting out with "The two" implies that there are no others, which
is contradicted by "the other two" later.  So, I'd suggest just
starting with "Two functions of the MDSC ...".

Section 3.3

Please expand NBI (which appears to only be used once in the
document).

Section 5.3.2

It seems pretty likely that allowing repeated path computation
requests (with different parameters) would allow a malicious MDSC to
learn a fair amount of information about the topology that the PNC
is attempting to abstract away.  This is probably not a huge deal,
though.

Section 8.3

  A key objective of the MDSC is to support the customer's expression
  of the application connectivity request via its CNC as set of
  desired business needs, therefore policy will play an important
  role.

nit: "as a set of"

  Once authorized, the virtual network service will be instantiated
  via the CNC-MDSC Interface (CMI), it will reflect the customer
  application and connectivity requirements, and specific service
  transport needs.

nit: this is a comma splice; I'd change the comma before "it" to
either a semicolon or a period.  (There's a similar issue in the
following sentence, too.)

Section 9.2

Perhaps we should say something about configuring trust anchors for the PKI,
e.g., using a smaller set of trusted CAs than in the Web PKI.

[Ballot comment]
I have a few nits to further improve readability:

Section 1:
"Traffic Engineered (TE) networks have a variety of mechanisms to facilitate separation of data plane and control plane"
s/facilitate separation/facilitate the separation/ ?

"This document describes a set of management and control functions used to operate one or more TE networks to construct virtual networks that can be represented to customers"
The word "represented" here sounds odd, but I don't really have an alternative -- perhaps just "presented" ? Represented is probably technically correct, but it feels like there should be a more appropriate one...

Section 3.4:
"In addition, some networks may operate a control plane and as such it is not practical for the customer to directly interface with network elements."
Can you please clarify that you mean a TE (or similar) control plane -- I believe that *all* networks have some sort of control plane (and so the "some networks" is false / misleading).

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-teas-actn-framework-13, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-04-30):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: db3546@att.com, Vishnu Beeram , draft-ietf-teas-actn-framework@ietf.org, teas-chairs@ietf.org, teas@ietf.org, vbeeram@juniper.net
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Framework for Abstraction and Control of Traffic Engineered Networks) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Traffic Engineering Architecture and
Signaling WG (teas) to consider the following document: - 'Framework for
Abstraction and Control of Traffic Engineered Networks'
  as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2018-04-30. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of
the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  Traffic Engineered networks have a variety of mechanisms to
  facilitate the separation of the data plane and control plane. They
  also have a range of management and provisioning protocols to
  configure and activate network resources. These mechanisms represent
  key technologies for enabling flexible and dynamic networking. The
  term "Traffic Engineered network" refers to a network that uses any
  connection-oriented technology under the control of a distributed or
  centralized control plane to support dynamic provisioning of end-to-
  end connectivity.

  Abstraction of network resources is a technique that can be applied
  to a single network domain or across multiple domains to create a
  single virtualized network that is under the control of a network
  operator or the customer of the operator that actually owns
  the network resources.

  This document provides a framework for Abstraction and Control of
  Traffic Engineered Networks (ACTN) to support virtual network
  services and connectivity services.





The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-actn-framework/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-actn-framework/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

> As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
> Shepherd Write-Up.
>
> Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.
>
> (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
> Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?

Informational.

> Why is this the proper type of RFC? 

This is a framework document. It provides a framework for Abstraction and
Control of Traffic Engineered Networks (ACTN).

> Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Yes.

>
> (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
> Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
> examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
> documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:
>
> Technical Summary
>
>  Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
>  and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
>  an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
>  or introduction.


  Traffic Engineered networks have a variety of mechanisms to
  facilitate the separation of the data plane and control plane. They
  also have a range of management and provisioning protocols to
  configure and activate network resources.  These mechanisms
  represent key technologies for enabling flexible and dynamic
  networking.

  Abstraction of network resources is a technique that can be applied
  to a single network domain or across multiple domains to create a
  single virtualized network that is under the control of a network
  operator or the customer of the operator that actually owns
  the network resources.

  This document provides a framework for Abstraction and Control of
  Traffic Engineered Networks (ACTN).

> Working Group Summary
>
>  Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
>  example, was there controversy about particular points or
>  were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
>  rough?

This is part of the initial set of ACTN documents worked on by the
WG. There was considerable debate at various stages of the WG process
on the terminology used in the document and on the various
operations/functions that fit into the framework. The authors addressed
all of these concerns by adding relevant text to the document.

>
> Document Quality
>
>  Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
>  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
>  implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
>  merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
>  e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
>  conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
>  there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
>  what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
>  review, on what date was the request posted?


This document has been discussed and reviewed thoroughly by the WG.
While there have been no official statements on implementation of this
new framework, the authors are from multiple vendors, and implementation
is expected.


> Personnel
>
>  Who is the Document Shepherd?

Vishnu Pavan Beeram

> Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Deborah Brungard

>
> (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
> the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
> for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
> the IESG.

The Document Shepherd has reviewed the document as part of normal WG progress
and WG last call. The Shepherd believes this document is ready for publication.

>
> (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
> breadth of the reviews that have been performed? 

No.

> (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
> broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
> DHCP, XML, or internationalization?

No.

> If so, describe the review that took place.

N/A.

>
> (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
> has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
> IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
> with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
> is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
> has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
> concerns here.

No specific concerns.

>
> (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
> disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
> and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

Yes, see thread
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/WdTY4LnKmy3trOTG9BaUJtXGV2Y

>
> (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
> If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
> disclosures.

No IPR disclosed.

> (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
> represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
> being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? 

Solid among those who are interested. “Strong concurrence of a fair number
of individuals, with others being silent" is a reasonable
characterization.

> (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
> discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
> email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
> separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No extreme discontent seen.

>
> (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
> document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
> Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
> thorough.

The document passes ID nits.

>
> (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
> criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A.

> (13) Have all references within this document been identified as
> either normative or informative?

Yes.

> (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
> advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
> references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

> (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
> If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
> the Last Call procedure.

No.

> (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
> existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
> in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
> listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
> part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
> other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
> explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No.

> (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
> section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
> document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
> are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
> Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
> identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
> detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
> allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
> reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

The IANA section was fully reviewed by the document shepherd and is
appropriate (no actions for IANA) for this draft.

> (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
> allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
> useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

None.

> (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
> Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
> language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

N/A

IPR Poll [Received all required responses]:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/WdTY4LnKmy3trOTG9BaUJtXGV2Y

daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/JbE4Z7MAJGDM_NOAi6yT08pIfi4

leeyoung@huawei.com
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/90HSMGcjjlYfTYxpdx77xtWAhao

adrian@olddog.co.uk
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/dbvU5Cj4ncJ7w4quBMzZGnmOaWc

Italo.Busi@huawei.com
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/U0kE-nOuIcQ3yNfTJ1rEbzWQvYU

kpithewan@infinera.com
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/-t2WXr2NHF9R4sHKRhqa1MrdqRo

michael.scharf@nokia.com
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/ykdGWO4V6RCDwSJd3H4q6NfTKOY

luyuanf@gmail.com
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/AcTulTr0MrFa3AxFvxN25Fhmk1U

diego@tid.es
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/4aPt_2ziTYxTd-AZ8ug6AXULxPQ

sergio.belotti@nokia.com
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/utygNWhb71Vr80sDuvSm4z-Zr-k

d.king@lancaster.ac.uk
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/kddGWxgHamfjzbnK6Y_dG9D0v9U

dhruv.ietf@gmail.com
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/u24Xu-7DLUhYq8Lpp6hz7eju39k

ggrammel@juniper.net
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/Tkh327z3T-ycVAlhGS7AGYc_e6M

IPR Poll:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/WdTY4LnKmy3trOTG9BaUJtXGV2Y

daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/JbE4Z7MAJGDM_NOAi6yT08pIfi4

leeyoung@huawei.com
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/90HSMGcjjlYfTYxpdx77xtWAhao

adrian@olddog.co.uk
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/dbvU5Cj4ncJ7w4quBMzZGnmOaWc

Italo.Busi@huawei.com
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/U0kE-nOuIcQ3yNfTJ1rEbzWQvYU

kpithewan@infinera.com

michael.scharf@nokia.com
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/ykdGWO4V6RCDwSJd3H4q6NfTKOY

luyuanf@gmail.com
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/AcTulTr0MrFa3AxFvxN25Fhmk1U

diego@tid.es
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/4aPt_2ziTYxTd-AZ8ug6AXULxPQ

sergio.belotti@nokia.com
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/utygNWhb71Vr80sDuvSm4z-Zr-k

d.king@lancaster.ac.uk
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/kddGWxgHamfjzbnK6Y_dG9D0v9U

dhruv.ietf@gmail.com
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/u24Xu-7DLUhYq8Lpp6hz7eju39k

ggrammel@juniper.net

Missing Responses:

ggrammel@juniper.net
kpithewan@infinera.com