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

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Fri, 13 January 2017 17:37 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78E49129CE4 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 09:37:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z83jsxzXNBeq for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 09:37:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (asmtp2.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.249]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 00471129CE2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 09:37:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v0DHbBjT012545; Fri, 13 Jan 2017 17:37:11 GMT
Received: from 950129200 ([176.241.251.3]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v0DHb6Os012510 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 13 Jan 2017 17:37:09 GMT
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: "'Stewart Bryant'" <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <148425592769.2878.958252799399956970.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <02f401d26da8$655e7c30$301b7490$@olddog.co.uk> <f44d1fa2-19e9-f2eb-9991-21f85d58f6a9@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <f44d1fa2-19e9-f2eb-9991-21f85d58f6a9@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: New Non-WG Mailing List: NetSlices - Network Slicing
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 17:37:07 -0000
Message-ID: <037801d26dc3$ac8edda0$05ac98e0$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQGcZlxvgJwBaaYzBECsdPQiJ0CV9AI7lK+kAgHz8GGhgMw5wA==
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1679-8.0.0.1202-22822.001
X-TM-AS-Result: No--4.019-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--4.019-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: +c13yJDs903DQW/tdTswLuYAh37ZsBDCC/ExpXrHizxq4coTktrGXzcu o3EoNtwLYjZJD6u2w+PwkTW/47+rGmpw4IniioZqi1u/Wt2ORDrS82QW/rFQI0FF7QZ35lZ3Cf2 h9A2gFAUxME6MN0X5nsGfQSoEiCmmyY9yX4/TBOaeAiCmPx4NwHJnzNw42kCxxEHRux+uk8ifEz J5hPndGfArmI1Md1H9XDYCLzz0FpZ7nLyqqsdGJSvRFmw+adarsIpWlBaZQJdDKX99/kC7OJy2W 5gLZBvDV2C9ZVQYvhnYTlGbglbBR8QqHltHU9gWh/yQr4rUA+khyumgjE26daI8pDPbYZMRVlxr 1FJij9s=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/cfcntiz3jQffHZjyayAXsJUGg_E>
Cc: a.galis@ucl.ac.uk, jiangsheng@huawei.com
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 17:37:28 -0000

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