# TEAS Agenda For IETF 110 Version: Feb 24, 2021 Tuesday, March 9 2021 17:00-19:00 Session III (UTC+1) Time Zone Converter: https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html?iso=20210309T160000&p1=1440&p2=tz_cet Materials: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/110/session/teas Note taking: https://codimd.ietf.org/notes-ietf-110-teas Meetecho: https://meetings.conf.meetecho.com/ietf110/?group=teas&short=&item=1 Audio stream: http://mp3.conf.meetecho.com/ietf110/teas/1.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/110/session/28648.ics YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jahmWi0aRRQ ## Slot# Start Timemin Duration Information ## 1 17:00 10min Title: Administrivia & WG Status Draft: Presenter: Chairs ## 2 17:10 0min Title: WG Draft updates (discuss on list) Draft: Many Presenter: Chairs Vishnu Pavan Beeram: Chairs are debating on whether draft-ietf-teas-pcecc-use-cases document should be taken to WG LC Dhruv Dhody: As someone who holds the pen on this, please do give me a headsup if the plan is to take it to WG LC; There are a few TBD items that need to be taken care of before starting WG LC. ## 3 17:10 (17:08) 10min Title: YANG models for VN/TE Performance Monitoring Telemetry and Scaling Intent Autonomics / Traffic Engineering (TE) and Service Mapping Yang Model https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang-11 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-teas-actn-pm-telemetry-autonomics-05 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-teas-te-service-mapping-yang-07 Presenter: Dhruv Dhody Tarek Saad: There is a model to realize SR policy and a separate model for TE tunnels. We originally thought that the TE tunnel could be used to realize SR policy but the SPRING WG decided that the SR policy is not analogous to TE tunnel. Is that what is triggering the issues here? Dhruv Dhody: When we started the VN yang model, we decide that we would reuse the TE tunnel and TE topology models as much as we could. If we have to now also map to the SR policy, it makes our model a bit ugly. Not sure if that is the best way forward and it is worth discussing more. Tarek Saad: Agree that this needs more discussion. We initially did add SR path specific attributes like color information to the TE tunnel, but we removed all of that after the SPRING WG decision. This discussion should be resurrected. Dhruv Dhody: The SR policy model is lacking most of the constraints information that are already defined in the TE tunnel. The constraints should be as similar as possible for SR policy. From the point of view of an NBI that is used for requesting path placement, the path control technology that is being used -- RSVP or SR -- should not matter. Should we do a profile of TE tunnel similar to the profile for TE topology? Oscar Gonzalez de Dios: Currently SR policy is only a device mode, not applicable at the NBI of a controller. Vishnu Pavan Beeram: The SR policy model should be using some of the TE groupings that we have developed in this WG. This is an action item for the authors of the SR policy model. For the ACTN VN YANG model, there are a couple of things that you need to worry about -- one is the underlay topology and the other is the underlay path. For the underlay topology it should be possible to refer to the sr-te-topology draft that is being discussed in our WG; but for the SR path we do have an issue because the generic TE path modeled in TEAS does not directly map to the SR path. Vishnu Pavan Beeram: Please take it to the list, this is something that needs to be resolved. ## 4 17:20 (17:21) 5min Title: Interworking of GMPLS Control and Centralized Controller System Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-controller-inter-work-05 Presenter: Yi Lin Lou Berger: I've noticed that you do not cover FRR. You would need to cover that. Yi Lin: Yes, that can be done. ## 5 17:25 17:?? 20min Title: Definition of IETF Network Slices Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition-01 Presenter: Reza Rokui Lou Berger: The document is a WG doc, so any agreement has to be at WG level not among authors. Joel Halpern: The slide doesn't list all the discussed options. Reza Rokui: We will revise to capture all options discussed on the list. Italo Busi: There is a difference between AP and VNAP in RFC8453. The AP is the reference point between the customer and the provider and can support one or more VNAP. The VNAP is the binding between a VN and an AP. Reza Rokui: The NS-AP has the same meaning. John Drake: When do the chairs intend to make a call on the terminology? Lou Berger: The chairs are tracking the discussion on the list and think there is still some room for discussion. Eric Gray: Terminology needs to be aligned in order to facilitate smooth merging of the definitions document and the framework document. Lou Berger: Chairs have the same view. ## 6 17:45 (1746) 10min Title: Realizing Network Slices in IP/MPLS Networks Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet-02 Presenter: Tarek Saad / Vishnu Pavan Beeram Adrian Farrel: The notion of slice policy needs to be clarified further. Tarek Saad: This is explained in subsequent slides. Chenhao Ma: The new terms Slice Aggregate and Slice Policy are a little confusing, is there any difference from the term VTN in VPN+ framework? Tarek Saad: There are some key differences between a Slice Aggregate and VTN. The main difference is that Slice Aggregate is NOT a topology. Zhenbin Li: There are many approaches (some overlapping) for carrying the slice identifier in packets. There is a need to find some consensus. Tarek Saad: Agree that there needs to be some consensus with respect to the common pieces of functionality. Lou Berger: It may be useful to have some of these generic constructs in the framework document. ## 7 17:55 (1759) 5min Title: IETF Network Slice Controller and its associated data models Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-contreras-teas-slice-controller-models-01 Presenter: Luis M. Contreras Lou Berger: if you think there is some material in this draft which can be useful for the framework draft, please consider proposing on the mailing list some text that can be added to the framework draft. ## 8 18:00 8min (1805) 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-02 Presenter: Reza Rokui Lou Berger: It is clear that we need an NBI draft. It is good to see this proposal. ## 9 18:08 8min (1813) Title: YANG Data Model for Slice Policy Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-bestbar-teas-yang-slice-policy-00 Presenter: Tarek Saad / Vishnu Pavan Beeram Zhenbin Li: Should the control-plane extensions drafts be discussed before putting together a data model draft? Vishnu Pavan Beeram: No, the first step would be to get consensus on the need for a slice aggregate construct and to model the construct that instantiates it. All other control plane / data plane extensions can follow suit. Adrian Farrel (from chat): Terminology is not consistent with draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet :-( Tarek Saad (from chat): Thanks Adrian. Appreciate a pointer to the inconsitency and we will make sure it is corrected ## 10 18:16 8min (1821) Title: 5G End-to-end Network Slice Mapping from the view of Transport Network Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-geng-teas-network-slice-mapping-03 Presenter: Xuesong Geng Uma Chunduri: Lot of relevant work is happening in the DMM WG. Jie Dong: We are open to discuss which WG this work belongs to. We can take this discussion offline. ## 11 18:24 (1829) 8min Title: Instantiation of IETF Network Slices in service providers networks Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-barguil-teas-network-slices-instantation-00 Presenter: Luis M. Contreras No questions/comments ## 12 18:32 (1838) 8min Title: IETF Network Slice use cases Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-cheng-teas-network-slice-usecase-00 Presenter: Ruixue Wang for Weiqiang Cheng Luis Contreras: Suggest to check consistency of use cases presented here with what are in the draft-contreras-use-case draft mentioned in the previous presentation. ## 13 18:39 (1244) 8min Title: Scalability Considerations for Enhanced VPN (VPN+) Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-dong-teas-enhanced-vpn-vtn-scalability-02 Presenter: Jie Dong No questions/comments ## 14 18:46 8min Title: Profiles for Traffic Engineering (TE) Topology Data Model Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-busi-teas-te-topology-profiles-01 Presenter: Italo Busi Vishnu Pavan: Please capture the questions from the last slide and send it to the mailing list to get feedback. Italo: Sure. ## Adjourn 19:00