Hello Bruno, Martin, Rob, and whole WG,
as with many bigger protocols that actually make their way into
production networks, I get the strong feeling that SPRING is not done
with the conclusion of the core documents. As the technology gets closer
to production use, unforeseen topics and issues appear that need to be
discussed and - in many cases - standardized. I do see the need for
documents of the "operators' requirements" style.
Conflict resolution was one good example. Others are about traffic
steering and traffic and/or performance measurement und monitoring.
Probably not all networks have the same requirement as ours, but maybe
there are others that feel like us: we cannot afford to transport
sginificant huge amounts of traffic if we cannot measure it. Measure it
in a way that is suitable to generate traffic matrices and and allows to
offline simulate the whole network.
Same for traffic steering: how can I actually differentiate the traffic
and have the routers choose the right segment lists for every packet?
While I'm having very good discussions with multiple vendors about these
topics, I really think this is something that needs to be standardized.
And in this case it means, in my eyes, that the charter of the SPRING wg
must be enhanced in some way to allow this kind of discussion and
standardization.
Best regards, Martin
Am 05.03.18 um 17:59 schrieb bruno.decra...@orange.com:
Hello WG,
now that nearly all the core documents are in the hands of IESG or beyond, we think it is time to (re)discuss rechartering.
We brought up that question few meetings ago and the feedback, at that time,
was that the WG at least needs to be maintained to discuss the extensions
following deployment feedback.
But we need also identify technical directions.
In order to initiate the discussion we are proposing some high level items but we'd like to make clear a few points before:
* these are only proposals; what might end-up as the next steps for SPRING
will be what the WG is willing to work on (which includes having cycles for
that).
* what the WG might be rechartered to do is not necessarily limited to that;
so other proposals are welcome.
So, we thought of the following:
* general architectural work / extensions
there are still few items on our plate and we expect that some might need to
be progressed, and we should maybe allow for others to come.
* service chaining
last meeting there were proposals discussed in SPRING to realize some form of
service chaining. any work in that space would require close coordination with
SFC and maybe other WG.
* yang
we are a bit behind here and there is definitely work to do.
So please comment on these and propose additional items.
We'll likely have a dedicated slot in London but we'd like to progress before
that.
Thank you,
--Martin, Rob, Bruno
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Vigoureux [mailto:martin.vigour...@nokia.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 4:25 PM
> To: spring@ietf.org
> Cc: spring-cha...@ietf.org; Alvaro Retana (aretana)
> Subject: Next steps for SPRING?
>
> WG,
>
> in the session we have opened the discussion on the future of the WG,
> putting all options on the table (recharter/close/sleep).
> As a foreword, we still have few WG Documents that we need to -and will-
> push towards IESG (and a greater number that need to reach RFC status),
> but with those we'll have reached most if not all of our milestones,
> thus the question on what's next.
>
> So, we think we have heard during the session that closing wasn't
> desired and one reason for that is to have a home to share and discuss
> deployment considerations as the technology gets deployed.
> There are also a few individual documents knocking at the door, and some
> of them were presented during the session.
>
> To reach out to everyone, we are thus asking the question on the list.
> We would like to hear from you all what the working group should be
> focussing on.
>
> Note, the expectation is that future items should not be use-cases but
> rather be technology extensions/evolutions.
>
> Thank you
>
> Martin & Bruno
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce
message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou
falsifie. Merci.
This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete
this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been
modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
