Re: New Non-WG Mailing List: NetSlices - Network Slicing

Lou Berger <> Tue, 17 January 2017 02:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EE46128BA2 for <>; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 18:17:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.657
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.657 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-1.156, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (768-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cjA4rkxEl_hz for <>; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 18:17:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with SMTP id C3948127058 for <>; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 18:17:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 26239 invoked by uid 0); 17 Jan 2017 02:17:50 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO cmgw3) ( by with SMTP; 17 Jan 2017 02:17:50 -0000
Received: from ([]) by cmgw3 with id ZEHn1u00y2SSUrH01EHqsq; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:17:50 -0700
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=YuCcGeoX c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:17 a=L9H7d07YOLsA:10 a=9cW_t1CCXrUA:10 a=s5jvgZ67dGcA:10 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=IgFoBzBjUZAA:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=AEDFM0qtAAAA:8 a=lG7i_GufYmf5F0imFlsA:9 a=rQzk9E2sQKpuiVOf:21 a=K4HU1nydzOUmMUGE:21 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=ucru8P404PcA:10 a=SIJuLSUzVpUA:10 a=w1C3t2QeGrPiZgrLijVG:22 a=NCq4FBG6EvGFEERSFaZp:22
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version :Date:Message-ID:From:Cc:References:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=+3des6g+Y4+U9H0ckWIEygJBql83CGD381EQbaO+OPo=; b=Ka0E2jsAHjUvp28eThqH65zOQk 0JYY1HuH3hYz9BtTWUk6utDSOwc5vmze0fVv6RtCaB6F8ujCW3WM4foXbdneWMS/hhx4fUprML7bV +936cqB0XUk5nIf0iwe4HbVW+;
Received: from ([]:46262 helo=[IPv6:::1]) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from <>) id 1cTJLF-0005SN-2Y; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:17:47 -0700
Subject: Re: New Non-WG Mailing List: NetSlices - Network Slicing
To: Terry Manderson <>, "" <>, 'Stewart Bryant' <>, "" <>
References: <> <02f401d26da8$655e7c30$301b7490$> <> <037801d26dc3$ac8edda0$05ac98e0$> <>
From: Lou Berger <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 21:17:22 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname -
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain -
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain -
X-BWhitelist: no
X-Exim-ID: 1cTJLF-0005SN-2Y
X-Source-Sender: ([IPv6:::1]) []:46262
X-Email-Count: 4
X-Source-Cap: bGFibm1vYmk7bGFibm1vYmk7Ym94MzEzLmJsdWVob3N0LmNvbQ==
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 02:17:57 -0000

On 1/16/2017 8:49 PM, Terry Manderson wrote:
> Since you asked Adrian :)
> I granted approval of this list, as a list, so that the definition of network slicing could be discussed in an IETF context.
> Really, it boils down to the (on list) discussion of what is a proposed network slicing definition that could see the IETF doing work on. So really about presenting a better formed definition to the IETF, for the IETF to consider at some future point in time. As we know with most "I have a problem that I think the IETF should work on" proposals we tend to ask for the problem to be defined in a way that does communicate the depth and breadth of the issue or the idea before a BOF is considered. This is where I see network slicing now. 

well, there was an opportunity for some discussion an IETF context that
began and then went unanswered...

> Showing that this very amorphous concept has the hope of some agreed shape and also that there are sufficient bodies to form that shape, whatever it is.
> As a mailing list (and JUSTa mailing list!) the work for the interested parties on that mailing list is to try to put words together that is actually meaningful in the IETF context. To be brutally honest I have doubts that this is possible from what I read to date but I do commit (as AD) to allowing discussion to occur as I'm neither the magistrate of taste nor the gate of interest.
Well there seems to be a trend to having a low bar for mailing lists
which means that folks with new ideas (at least to them) don't have much
motivation to research on going work to see how theirs fits in...  BTW
this is a general comment -- even if perhaps applicable in this case.


> Cheers
> Terry
> On 14/01/2017, 3:37 AM, "ietf on behalf of Adrian Farrel" < on behalf of> wrote:
>     Thanks Stewart and Alex.
>     > This list is intended for discussion of network slicing to determine
>     > an agreed IETF definition of the term Network Slicing, problems and
>     > gaps to be covered with an aim to facilitate interoperation across
>     > different operator and vendor solutions. The list also determines (and
>     > assimilates) which elements of the slicing problems are already
>     > covered by existing IETF designs or work in progress.
>     It's good to discuss stuff.
>     How will agreement of "an IETF definition" be measured?
>     Or maybe you mean to attempt to agree a definition among the people subscribed to the list and propose that as a definition for use by the IETF?
>     But still, who on the list will call consensus?
>     Why is this something to be petty about?
>     Because I need to know whether this is a list I have to join and monitor in case I don't agree the definition, or whether that definition will come up for IETF review in the normal way.
>     Perhaps the AD who granted this list with this charter could speak up?
>     Adrian