Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9543 <draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices-25> for your review
Shunsuke Homma <shunsuke.homma.ietf@gmail.com> Sat, 17 February 2024 00:08 UTC
Return-Path: <shunsuke.homma.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1059C15107C; Fri, 16 Feb 2024 16:08:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.905
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.905 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, GB_SUMOF=5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_HTML_ATTACH=0.01, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k9cX0y5WoNPa; Fri, 16 Feb 2024 16:08:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yw1-x112b.google.com (mail-yw1-x112b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::112b]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 61F27C151065; Fri, 16 Feb 2024 16:08:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yw1-x112b.google.com with SMTP id 00721157ae682-607eefeea90so15042797b3.1; Fri, 16 Feb 2024 16:08:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1708128507; x=1708733307; darn=rfc-editor.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=sOOBXXVBa599hv6knFxcFjsomGHB86+fEQyZQK1nh+w=; b=BWn+0GYc6Kj7+RqIoHVpFflE4GXSR5O/V7Iuf0tvzM3z20gX5qm8PaDDN/QzoJF5MJ ehNaRfsuImLRFyw/aYi23xPb6LVwNN9G/8n02oAfB6OFpZjougS4bYZSVmtL6O3OG0Fu hHJWu7APRitF4gWMHOG/s8mbk/Uj63bitv8R9Qn+yxGQu8vXvL5Jx1qjnUmTV4OrwKG+ 0VV3LMuPKxcAYPEiImAm5e8ODfxkKaOUZs89dc6yqJnjiXP5R0eqkRAtJygueShk+xTM uOUln44suSjlofjBjFkVD/jxVp370tPGXEWITiHUKtG/ce22e4SrO84VVb+oXB9nIC4+ p4rg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1708128507; x=1708733307; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=sOOBXXVBa599hv6knFxcFjsomGHB86+fEQyZQK1nh+w=; b=lgA62ztPqxcU//z5XVXrwHMQkD4lK7dvOb+Ws/LCN6mInW2v24dPEjgqsKDp3t1zLt 3AwShqZ22Vus4xwDrBZg6JLBD/Y/jRyRjz6U0qKAyc8VJZi2r0QIVZDj8LO4xC7SB0Un iGdmACdWvIAu5DPnQyY90LWnyrE2RCPmiuLi33ZxufM/NGbaiSBb0uLT/FQ3ULxawOI6 DdHRENiSyoCyuiyswKjO46PVvFMH0dpuHdsMapqew3ho0FkDvxTObJTybL+m+cY1rw+3 VjXHYP3KysWJJWTSJ8bIdupEpFnZgTHhKE8MMz6TCLC0r9yyKDu+p0IDy4X6HXRgXdWY 435A==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXr5RUJ6NKw/snO1v5T9rLGE2E14OWNb78I5Jn7vCHFpPvfKGXvGsTvxLHK6eXpiMqe7ihr08DKxeWjeUWDHp89lpLxhG8kNSKQ4jC2
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzzkunExbUhHh7Lh2aOPvCRT5l1rB0POr5pKAcUeRDjugZTa6Hd O3B8TWBk3zHokMc3bfpnF3RJ3/nDdz8TQ9pCU+7NlkaMaeCRIDgkPH18m5Fv1/tmn46KGyW8Rno YYDz5qjzysnlREQVRKT1hMdP3W1+GiQz8
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGdfftcqWBCzl47Ix4AQTu2knP6YQtT74+L6ItmGPAyArta8I+AbmCpOP/07jelPVlF28mp3bi1cmZiQ/NpmVw=
X-Received: by 2002:a0d:d4c3:0:b0:604:9551:f59a with SMTP id w186-20020a0dd4c3000000b006049551f59amr4492918ywd.10.1708128506510; Fri, 16 Feb 2024 16:08:26 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240215030234.C74EE1F18516@rfcpa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20240215030234.C74EE1F18516@rfcpa.amsl.com>
From: Shunsuke Homma <shunsuke.homma.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2024 09:08:14 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKr2Fb-1cfUDfSWoA-qs0XamEEsSQZzMftrc9Pbv-6wTbFPY7w@mail.gmail.com>
To: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Cc: adrian@olddog.co.uk, je_drake@yahoo.com, rrokui@ciena.com, kiranm@futurewei.com, luismiguel.contrerasmurillo@telefonica.com, jefftant.ietf@gmail.com, teas-ads@ietf.org, teas-chairs@ietf.org, vbeeram@juniper.net, jgs@juniper.net, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="000000000000dd1b48061188a827"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/auth48archive/lGoS8TVP39aAKgZ_JU2C-REDAYM>
Subject: Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9543 <draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices-25> for your review
X-BeenThere: auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Archiving AUTH48 exchanges between the RFC Production Center, the authors, and other related parties" <auth48archive.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/auth48archive>, <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/>
List-Post: <mailto:auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/auth48archive>, <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2024 00:08:34 -0000
Dear RFC Editor, coauthors, Thank you for your reviewing and polishing the draft. Most of your points seem reasonable to me. I reflected the proposals on the. draft, excluding (24) Terminology part, and I attached the modified xml, txt and diff files on this email. My replies are described in the xml file with [SH] tags. If other coauthors have different thoughts on the changes, I'd like to respect his/her proposals. Please let me know if there are further things which I can contribute. Best regards, Shunsuke On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 12:02 PM <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote: > Authors, > > While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) > the following questions, which are also in the XML file. > > > 1) <!-- [rfced] FYI - In this sentence, we updated the last item in the > series > (i.e., "how abstract requests...") to create parallel structure. Please > review and let us know any objections. > > Original: > The document discusses the general framework for requesting and > operating IETF Network Slices, the characteristics of an IETF Network > Slice, the necessary system components and interfaces, and how > abstract requests can be mapped to more specific technologies. > > Current: > The document discusses the general framework for requesting and > operating IETF Network Slices, the characteristics of an IETF Network > Slice, the necessary system components and interfaces, and the > mapping of abstract requests to more specific technologies. > --> > > > 2) <!-- [rfced] Please review "described...described". Would you like to > replace > one of these with another word? > > Original: > ...the qualifying term "IETF" is used in this document to limit the > scope of > the network slices described to network technologies described and > standardized by the IETF. > > Perhaps (change one instance of "described" to "defined"): > ...the qualifying term "IETF" is used in this document to limit the > scope of > the network slices described to network technologies defined and > standardized > by the IETF. > > Or (remove first "described"): > ...the qualifying term "IETF" is used in this document to limit the > scope of > network slices to network technologies described and standardized > by the IETF. > --> > > > 3) <!-- [rfced] May we update "per {IETF Network Slice Service, > connectivity > construct, and SLOs/SLEs} basis" as follows? > > Original: > The customer and provider may > agree on a per {IETF Network Slice Service, connectivity > construct, and SLOs/SLEs} basis to police or shape traffic on the > AC in both the ingress (CE to PE) direction and egress (PE to CE) > direction. > > Perhaps: > The customer and provider may agree to police or shape traffic (based on > the specific IETF Network Slice Service, connectivity construct, and > SLOs/SLEs) on the AC in both the ingress (CE to PE) direction and egress > (PE to CE) direction. > --> > > > 4) <!-- [rfced] Would updating as follows improve readability of this long > sentence? > > Original: > A clear distinction should be made between the "IETF Network Slice > Service" which is the function delivered to the customer (see > Section 4.2) and which is agnostic to the technologies and mechanisms > used by the service provider, and the "IETF Network Slice" which is > the realization of the service in the provider's network achieved by > partitioning network resources and by applying certain tools and > techniques within the network (see Section 4.1 and Section 7). > > Perhaps: > A clear distinction should be made between the IETF Network Slice > Service and the IETF Network Slice: > > IETF Network Slice Service: The function delivered to the customer > (see Section 4.2). It is agnostic to the technologies and > mechanisms used by the service provider. > > IETF Network Slice: The realization of the service in the provider's > network achieved by partitioning network resources and by applying > certain tools and techniques within the network (see Sections 4.1 > and 7). > --> > > > 5) <!-- [rfced] Would using bullets make this text easier to read? Or do > you > prefer the current? > > Original: > That is, in a given IETF > Network Slice Service there may be one or more connectivity > constructs of the same or different type, each connectivity construct > may be between a different subset of SDPs, for a given connectivity > construct each sending SDP has its own set of SLOs and SLEs, and the > SLOs and SLEs in each set may be different. > > Perhaps: > That is, in a given IETF Network Slice Service: > > * There may be one or more connectivity constructs of the same > or different type. > > * Each connectivity construct may be between a different subset of > SDPs > > * For a given connectivity construct, each sending SDP has its own > set of SLOs and SLEs. > > * The SLOs and SLEs in each set may be different. > --> > > > 6) <!-- [rfced] Please review "That is, and in particular" in the second > sentence > below (first sentence is included for context). Should this read simply > "That is" or "In particular"? > > Original: > From the above, it can be seen that the SLOs of the senders define > the SLOs for the receivers on any connectivity construct. That is, > and in particular, the network may be expected to handle the traffic > volume from a sender to all destinations. This extends to all > connectivity constructs in an IETF Network Slice Service. > > Perhaps: > From the above, it can be seen that the SLOs of the senders define > the SLOs for the receivers on any connectivity construct. That is, > the network may be expected to handle the traffic > volume from a sender to all destinations. This extends to all > connectivity constructs in an IETF Network Slice Service. > > Or: > From the above, it can be seen that the SLOs of the senders define > the SLOs for the receivers on any connectivity construct. > In particular, the network may be expected to handle the traffic > volume from a sender to all destinations. This extends to all > connectivity constructs in an IETF Network Slice Service. > --> > > > 7) <!-- [rfced] Please clarify the text starting with "and commercial > terms...". Also, may we split up this long sentence to improve > readability? > > Original: > The SLA is expressed in terms of a set > of SLOs and SLEs that are to be applied for a given connectivity > construct between a sending SDP and the set of receiving SDPs, and > may describe the extent to which divergence from individual SLOs > and SLEs can be tolerated, and commercial terms as well as any > consequences for violating these SLOs and SLEs. > > Perhaps: > The SLA is expressed in terms of a set > of SLOs and SLEs that are to be applied for a given connectivity > construct between a sending SDP and the set of receiving SDPs. > The SLA may describe the extent to which divergence from individual > SLOs > and SLEs can be tolerated, commercial terms, and any > consequences for violating these SLOs and SLEs. > --> > > > 8) <!-- [rfced] Please clarify how the phrase "and specifying..." connects > to the > rest of the sentence. > > Original: > Availability will often be expressed along with the time period > over which the availability is measured, and specifying the > maximum allowed single period of downtime. > > Perhaps: > Availability will often be expressed along with the time period > over which the availability is measured and the > maximum allowed single period of downtime. > > Or: > Availability will often be expressed along with the time period > over which the availability is measured and will specify the > maximum allowed single period of downtime. > --> > > > 9) <!-- [rfced] Would it be helpful to clarify "e.g., [RFC4303]" by > including the > name of the mechanism in RFC 4303 as shown below? Similarly, would it > helpful to also clarify "for compliance with [HIPAA] or [PCI]" as shown > below? > > Original: > This SLE may include a request for encryption (e.g., [RFC4303]) > between the two SDPs explicitly to meet the architectural > recommendations in [TS33.210] or for compliance with [HIPAA] or > [PCI]. > > Perhaps: > This SLE may include a request for encryption (e.g., the Encapsulating > Security Payload (ESP) protocol [RFC4303]) > between the two SDPs explicitly to meet the architectural > recommendations in [TS33.210] or for compliance with the HIPAA Security > Rule [HIPAA] or > the PCI Data Security Standard (PCI DSS) [PCI]. > --> > > > 10) <!-- [rfced] We updated "gRPC/GNMI [I-D.openconfig-rtgwg-gnmi-spec] > uses" in > the first sentence below as follows. Please review to ensure > correctness. > > Also, would it be helpful to update "ProtoBufs" to "Protocol Buffers" in > the > second sentence? Or do you prefer the current? > > Original: > * gRPC/GNMI [I-D.openconfig-rtgwg-gnmi-spec] uses a binary encoded > programmable interface. ProtoBufs can be used to model gRPC and > GNMI data. > > Current: > * gRPC and gRPC Network Management Interface (gNMI) [GNMI] use a > binary encoded programmable interface. ProtoBufs can be used to > model gRPC and gNMI data. > --> > > > 11) <!-- [rfced] We do not see "Network Model" in RFC 8309, though we do > see > "Service Model", "Network Service Model", and "Network Element Model". > Please review and let us know if any updates are needed. > > Original: > These interfaces can be considered in the context of the Service > Model and Network Model described in [RFC8309] and, together with the > Device Configuration Interface used by the Network Controllers, > provides a consistent view of service delivery and realization. > --> > > > 12) <!-- [rfced] How may we update the "/" here? > > Original: > Recall that an IETF Network Slice is a service requested by / > provided for the customer. > > Perhaps: > Recall that an IETF Network Slice is a service requested by and/or > provided for the customer. > --> > > > 13) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We see that draft-ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn no longer > uses the > abbreviation "VPN+" (looks like it was removed in version -16). We have > thus removed "VPN+" in the following sentences. > > See https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn/. > > Original: > An enhanced VPN (VPN+) is designed to support the needs of new > applications, particularly applications that are associated with 5G > services. > . . . . . . . > [I-D.ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn] describes the framework for Enhanced > Virtual Private Network (VPN+) services. > > Current: > An enhanced VPN is designed to support the needs of new > applications, particularly applications that are associated with 5G > services. > . . . . . . . > [ENHANCED-VPN] describes the framework for Enhanced Virtual Private > Network services. > --> > > > 14) <!-- [rfced] Please review the parentheses in "(part of)". Should the > parentheses be removed, or should the phrase be moved and revised as > shown below? > > Current: > Generate SFC classification rules to identify (part of) the slice > traffic that will be bound to an SFC. > > Perhaps (remove parentheses): > Generate SFC classification rules to identify part of the slice > traffic that will be bound to an SFC. > > Or (move and revise parenthetical): > Generate SFC classification rules to identify the slice > traffic (or part of it) that will be bound to an SFC. > --> > > > 15) <!-- [rfced] May we update the text starting with "a robust..." as > follows? > > Current: > Furthermore, both the > IETF Network Slice Service Interface and the Network Configuration > Interface need to be secured with a robust authentication and > authorization; and associated auditing mechanism. > > Perhaps: > Furthermore, both the > IETF Network Slice Service Interface and the Network Configuration > Interface need to be secured with a robust authentication and > authorizations mechanism and an associated auditing mechanism. > --> > > > 16) <!-- [rfced] Please review whether this "Note:" should be in the > <aside> > element. It is defined as "a container for content that is semantically > less important or tangential to the content that surrounds it" > (https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary#aside). > > Current: > Note: See [NGMN_SEC] on 5G network slice security for discussion > relevant to this section. > --> > > > 17) <!-- [rfced] Please review the URL for the following reference. It > returns the > error: "Sorry, the post you are looking for is not available". May we > update to use one of these URLs below instead? > > > https://www.ngmn.org/publications/description-of-network-slicing-concept.html > https://ngmn.org/wp-content/uploads/160113_NGMN_Network_Slicing_v1_0.pdf > > Original: > [NGMN-NS-Concept] > NGMN Alliance, "Description of Network Slicing Concept", > https://www.ngmn.org/uploads/ > media/161010_NGMN_Network_Slicing_framework_v1.0.8.pdf , > 2016. > --> > > > 18) <!-- [rfced] New versions are available for the following 3GPP > references. Would you like to cite the latest version, or would do you > prefer the current? > > a) Latest version is 18.4.0 with date of 2023: > > https://portal.3gpp.org/desktopmodules/Specifications/SpecificationDetails.aspx?specificationId=3144 > > Original: > [TS23501] 3GPP, "System architecture for the 5G System (5GS)", 3GPP > TS 23.501, 2019. > > Perhaps: > [TS23.501] 3GPP, "System architecture for the 5G System (5GS)", 3GPP > TS 23.501, 2023. > > b) Latest version is 18.0.0 with date of 2024: > > https://portal.3gpp.org/desktopmodules/Specifications/SpecificationDetails.aspx?specificationId=3273 > > Original: > [TS28530] 3GPP, "Management and orchestration; Concepts, use cases > and requirements", 3GPP TS 28.530, 2019. > > Perhaps: > [TS28.530] 3GPP, "Management and orchestration; Concepts, use cases > and requirements", 3GPP TS 28.530, 2024. > --> > > > 19) <!-- [rfced] The URL below does not go directly to PCI DSS, though > readers can > use the search feature to find it. Would it be helpful to include the > following link instead? Also, we see that the latest version of PCI DSS is > dated March 2022. Would you like to update the date accordingly? > > Original: > [PCI] PCI Security Standards Council, "PCI DSS", May 2018, > <https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org>. > > Perhaps: > [PCI] PCI Security Standards Council, "PCI DSS", March 2022, > <https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org/document_library/>. > --> > > > 20) <!-- [rfced] We see that the O-RAN Slicing Architecture has a newer > version > than the one listed in the following reference entry. Would you like to > cite the more recent version (version 11.0 with date of October 2023)? > > Also, we're having trouble determining what title is correct here. Would > the > following be better, or do you prefer the current? > > Current: > [ORAN] O-RAN, "O-RAN Working Group 1 Slicing Architecture", > O-RAN.WG1 v06.00, 2022, > <https://orandownloadsweb.azurewebsites.net/ > specifications>. > > Perhaps: > [ORAN] O-RAN, "O-RAN Work Group 1 (Use Cases and Overall > Architecture): Slicing Architecture", > O-RAN.WG1.Slicing-Architecture-R003-v11.00, October 2023, > <https://orandownloadsweb.azurewebsites.net/ > specifications>. > --> > > > 21) <!-- [rfced] Would it be helpful to add a colon after "constructs" and > move > the open parentheses to appear before "represented"? > > Original: > To achieve this, the customer may request > an IETF Network Slice Service comprising two P2P connectivity > constructs (CE1-CE2 and CE2-CE3 represented as *** in the figure). > ... > This service contains two P2P connectivity > constructs (CE1-ACE1 and ACE1-CE3 represented as ooo in the figure). > ... > In this > case, the IETF Network Slice Service request contains two P2P > connectivity constructs (CE1-ServiceFunction and ServiceFunction-CE3 > represented as xxx in the figure). > > Perhaps: > To achieve this, the customer may request > an IETF Network Slice Service comprising two P2P connectivity > constructs: CE1-CE2 and CE2-CE3 (represented with "*" in > Figure 6). > ... > This service contains two P2P connectivity > constructs: CE1-ACE1 and ACE1-CE3 (represented with "o" in > Figure 6). > ... > In this case, the IETF Network Slice Service request contains two P2P > connectivity constructs: CE1-ServiceFunction and ServiceFunction-CE3 > (represented with "x" in Figure 6). > --> > > > 22) <!-- [rfced] Please review the quotation marks with "stacking" here. > Are the > quotation marks necessary? > > Original: > This "stacking" of IETF Network Slice constructs is not different to > the way virtual networks may be arranged. > --> > > > 23) <!-- [rfced] In the Contributors section, we updated <artwork> to > <contact>. The parenthetical with Eric Gray's entry looks odd in the txt > output because it appears closer to Jari's name than to Eric's name. The > html and pdf outputs look better. To avoid any possible confusion, we > suggest moving the parenthetical to the introductory text as > follows. Please review and let us know your thoughts. > > Current: > The following authors contributed significantly to this document: > > Eric Gray > Retired > > > (The original editor of the foundation documents) > > Jari Arkko > Ericsson > Email: jari.arkko@piuha.net > > Perhaps: > The following people contributed substantially to the content of this > document and should be considered coauthors. Eric Gray was the original > editor of the foundation documents. > > Eric Gray > Retired > > Jari Arkko > Ericsson > Email: jari.arkko@piuha.net > --> > > > 24) <!-- [rfced] Terminology > > a) Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to be used > inconsistently. Please review these occurrences and let us know if/how they > may be made consistent. > > IETF network slicing vs. IETF Network Slicing > network controller vs. Network Controller > orchestrator vs. Orchestrator > "Mapping Functions" vs. mapping functions > "stitched together" vs. stitched together > > > b) Please review "hub and spoke" and "hub-and-spoke" in the following. May > we > update these to "hub-and-spoke topology"? Other options include > "hub-and-spoke > configuration" (one instance in document) and "hub-and-spoke > architecture" (one instance in document). > > Original: > A.3. Hub and Spoke > ... > Hub and spoke is a popular way to realize any-to-any connectivity in > support of multiple P2P traffic flows ... > ... > In many cases, it is the network operator's choice > whether to use hub and spoke to realize a mesh of P2P connectivity > constructs or P2MP connectivity constructs: > ... > Figure 7: Example Hub and Spoke Under Customer Control > ... > With a P2MP or A2A connectivity construct, it is the operator's > choice whether to realize the construct with ingress replication, > multicast in the core, P2MP tunnels, or hub-and-spoke. > > Perhaps: > A.3. Hub-and-Spoke Topology > ... > A hub-and-spoke topology is a popular way to realize any-to-any > connectivity in > support of multiple P2P traffic flows ... > ... > In many cases, it is the network operator's choice > whether to use a hub-and-spoke topology to realize a mesh of P2P > connectivity > constructs or P2MP connectivity constructs: > ... > Figure 7: Example Hub-and-Spoke Topology under Customer Control > ... > With a P2MP or A2A connectivity construct, it is the operator's > choice whether to realize the construct with ingress replication, > multicast in the core, P2MP tunnels, or a hub-and-spoke topology. > > > c) FYI - We capitalized a few instances of "IETF network slice" based on > the > definition in the abstract. > > > d) FYI - We added expansions for the following abbreviations. Please > review and > let us know if there are any objections. > > eMBB - enhanced Mobile Broadband > gNMI - gRPC Network Management Interface > mMTC - massive Machine Type Communications > MAC - Media Access Control > MACsec - Media Access Control Security > URLLC - Ultra-Reliable and Low Latency Communications > OAM - Operations, Administration, and Maintenance > --> > > > 25) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the > online > Style Guide < > https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> > and let us know if any changes are needed. > > Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should > still be reviewed as a best practice. > --> > > > Thank you. > > RFC Editor/st/rv > > > > On Feb 14, 2024, at 6:58 PM, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org wrote: > > *****IMPORTANT***** > > Updated 2024/02/14 > > RFC Author(s): > -------------- > > Instructions for Completing AUTH48 > > Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and > approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC. > If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies > available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/). > > You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties > (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing > your approval. > > Planning your review > --------------------- > > Please review the following aspects of your document: > > * RFC Editor questions > > Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor > that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as > follows: > > <!-- [rfced] ... --> > > These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email. > > * Changes submitted by coauthors > > Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your > coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you > agree to changes submitted by your coauthors. > > * Content > > Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot > change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to: > - IANA considerations updates (if applicable) > - contact information > - references > > * Copyright notices and legends > > Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in > RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions > (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/). > > * Semantic markup > > Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of > content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode> > and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at > <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>. > > * Formatted output > > Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the > formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is > reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting > limitations compared to the PDF and HTML. > > > Submitting changes > ------------------ > > To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all > the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties > include: > > * your coauthors > > * rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org (the RPC team) > > * other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., > IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the > responsible ADs, and the document shepherd). > > * auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, which is a new archival mailing list > to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion > list: > > * More info: > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc > > * The archive itself: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ > > * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out > of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter). > If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you > have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, > auth48archive@rfc-editor.org will be re-added to the CC list and > its addition will be noted at the top of the message. > > You may submit your changes in one of two ways: > > An update to the provided XML file > — OR — > An explicit list of changes in this format > > Section # (or indicate Global) > > OLD: > old text > > NEW: > new text > > You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit > list of changes, as either form is sufficient. > > We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem > beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, > and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in > the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager. > > > Approving for publication > -------------------------- > > To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating > that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’, > as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval. > > > Files > ----- > > The files are available here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9543.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9543.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9543.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9543.txt > > Diff file of the text: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9543-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9543-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > Alt-diff of the text (allows you to more easily view changes > where text has been deleted or moved): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9543-alt-diff.html > > Diff of the XML: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9543-xmldiff1.html > > > Tracking progress > ----------------- > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9543 > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > Thank you for your cooperation, > > RFC Editor > > -------------------------------------- > RFC9543 (draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices-25) > > Title : A Framework for Network Slices in Networks Built from > IETF Technologies > Author(s) : A. Farrel, Ed., J. Drake, Ed., R. Rokui, S. Homma, K. > Makhijani, L. Contreras, J. Tantsura > WG Chair(s) : Oscar Gonzalez de Dios, Vishnu Pavan Beeram, Lou Berger > > Area Director(s) : Alvaro Retana, John Scudder, Andrew Alston > >
- [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9543 <draft-ietf-teas-… rfc-editor
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9543 <draft-ietf-t… rfc-editor
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9543 <draft-ietf-t… Shunsuke Homma
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9543 <draft-ietf-t… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9543 <draft-ietf-t… Shunsuke Homma
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9543 <draft-ietf-t… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9543 <draft-ietf-t… Shunsuke Homma
- [auth48] [*AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9543 <draft-… Sarah Tarrant
- Re: [auth48] [*AD] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9543 <dr… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [auth48] [*AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9543 <draft-… Sarah Tarrant
- Re: [auth48] [*AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9543 <draft-… Shunsuke Homma
- Re: [auth48] [*AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9543 <draft-… Shunsuke Homma
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9543 <draft-ietf-t… Sarah Tarrant
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9543 <draft-ietf-t… Shunsuke Homma
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9543 <draft-ietf-t… Sarah Tarrant
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9543 <draft-ietf-t… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9543 <draft-ietf-t… John Drake
- Re: [auth48] [**EXTERNAL**] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be… Rokui, Reza
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9543 <draft-ietf-t… Sarah Tarrant
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9543 <draft-ietf-t… Sarah Tarrant
- Re: [auth48] [**EXTERNAL**] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be… Rokui, Reza
- Re: [auth48] [**EXTERNAL**] Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be… LUIS MIGUEL CONTRERAS MURILLO
- [auth48] [AD]* AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9543 <draft-ietf… Sarah Tarrant
- Re: [auth48] [AD]* AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9543 <draft-… Sarah Tarrant
- Re: [auth48] [AD]* AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9543 <draft-… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [auth48] [AD]* AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9543 <draft-… John Scudder
- Re: [auth48] [AD]* AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9543 <draft-… John Scudder
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9543 <draft-ietf-t… Sarah Tarrant
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9543 <draft-ietf-t… Sarah Tarrant