Re: [CCAMP] POLL CLOSED - WG adoption poll on draft-zheng-ccamp-yang-otn-slicing-03

Hi Fatai, Daniele, WG,

Thank you for concluding the adoption call.
draft-ietf-ccamp-yang-otn-slicing-00 has been published to the WG.

In today's meeting, we have created a collection of comments received from
the mailing list, and plan to provide further responses for the interim
based on the replies already made on the mailing list. The list is tracked
as issue #25
<https://github.com/aguoietf/ietf-ccamp-yang-otn-slicing/issues/25> on
GitHub and also copied below for your reference:

   1.

   Harmonizing with [draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang]
   2.

   It would be helpful for the draft to reflect the fact that OTN-SC is
   just a “NS Realizer” for OTN networks.
   3.

   Harmonizing with [draft-ietf-teas-applicability-actn-slicing]
   4.

   Reduced frontpage author (#23
   <https://github.com/aguoietf/ietf-ccamp-yang-otn-slicing/issues/23>)
   5.

   Clarify relationship between an OTN slice and L1VPN
   6.

   Clarify relationship between an OTN slice and Abstract (TE) Topology
   7.

   Is there a need for OTN slicing? Some thought that slicing should stop
   at IP layer
   8.

   Is "OTN slicing" a conflated term, and should we call it "OTN resource
   partitioning" or "OTN virtual network"?
   9.

   Update the description and Fig. 2 for the 3 identified options. Explicit
   verbiage showing the options would be good for the reader.
   10.

   It would be helpful to show maybe in a section that how this additional
   OTN-SC the value and gains it provides that is not already provided by ACTN
   framework RFC 8453.
   11.

   It may be a good idea to add verbiage in the draft as to the OTN slice
   provisioning gap that exists for network slicing compared to ACTN
   provisioning of underlay VN Type 1 and Type 2 OTN resources.
   12.

   Minor changes to the text following section 1.3.2 of RFC 5921 (MPLS -->
   MPLS(-TP))

Thanks,
Aihua

On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 9:45 AM Fatai Zhang <zhangfatai=
40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
>
>
> The WG poll is closed with the result of the draft being adopted based on
> the WG consensus.
>
>
>
> We as the chairs made the decision to adopt the draft because there is
> lots of interest in this topic and the open comments have been clarified to
> some extent, and we’re arranging an interim just on this draft and the WG
> will decide if and how to update the draft according to mailing list
> discussion and interim discussions.
>
>
>
> Authors, please republish draft-zheng-ccamp-yang-otn-slicing-03  as
> draft-ietf-ccamp-yang-otn-slicing-00 with only the date and file name
> changed..
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Fatai & Daniele
>
>
>
>
>
> *发件人:* CCAMP [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] *代表 *Fatai Zhang
> *发送时间:* 2022年1月12日 10:24
> *收件人:* CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>
> *主题:* [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-zheng-ccamp-yang-otn-slicing-03
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> All the IPR declarations regarding draft-zheng-ccamp-yang-otn-slicing-03
> have been collected, this starts the polling for WG adoption.
>
>
>
> The poll will last 2 weeks and will end on Wednesday January 26th.
>
>
>
> Please send email to the list indicating "yes/support" or "no/do not
> support" and a motivation for your reply, mandatory for the "not support"
> and nice to have for the "support".
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Fatai & Daniele
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> CCAMP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>