Re: [mpls] [Teas] New term for the underlay construct used for slice realization

Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com> Mon, 16 August 2021 16:04 UTC

Return-Path: <lizhenbin@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 742BF3A0C42; Mon, 16 Aug 2021 09:04:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.796
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.796 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 ukYqgmohwCii; Mon, 16 Aug 2021 09:04:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B02163A0C0B; Mon, 16 Aug 2021 09:04:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fraeml708-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.207]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4GpJqg6934z6FGdP; Tue, 17 Aug 2021 00:03:43 +0800 (CST)
Received: from dggeme751-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.97) by fraeml708-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256) id 15.1.2308.8; Mon, 16 Aug 2021 18:04:34 +0200
Received: from dggpemm500008.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.136) by dggeme751-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.97) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2176.2; Tue, 17 Aug 2021 00:04:32 +0800
Received: from dggpemm500008.china.huawei.com ([7.185.36.136]) by dggpemm500008.china.huawei.com ([7.185.36.136]) with mapi id 15.01.2176.012; Tue, 17 Aug 2021 00:04:32 +0800
From: Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com>
To: "draft-ali-teas-spring-ns-building-blocks@ietf.org" <draft-ali-teas-spring-ns-building-blocks@ietf.org>, "draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-stateless-slice-id@ietf.org" <draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-stateless-slice-id@ietf.org>, "draft-decraene-mpls-slid-encoded-entropy-label-id@ietf.org" <draft-decraene-mpls-slid-encoded-entropy-label-id@ietf.org>
CC: Tarek Saad <tsaad.net@gmail.com>, TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>, John E Drake <jdrake=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, "Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com>, "EXT-vishnupavan@gmail.com" <vishnupavan@gmail.com>, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Teas] New term for the underlay construct used for slice realization
Thread-Index: AQHXjuh7XQh50hIpRkGOw1sYat8rBKtvbDaAgAAGm4CAACkwAIABS/mAgASvf4CAALiD0A==
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2021 16:04:32 +0000
Message-ID: <f4e7fb3886d844058aafc249dfe91684@huawei.com>
References: <2ae53e44d60548e6ac961ac992615e9b@huawei.com> <BY3PR05MB80819A0E7F8CAFD5BAE79A91C7F79@by3pr05mb8081.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <33ca73966af4490d84b88c765e183a98@huawei.com> <BY3PR05MB80816B3982271C1FEA86E46CC7F89@by3pr05mb8081.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <eme7fd3b03-1b2a-47d5-a8f5-b45ecdadeb90@kmak-book2> <00e401d78ee8$5ea55790$1bf006b0$@olddog.co.uk> <DM5PR1901MB2150DA28E1058EDA0DDD22CCFCF99@DM5PR1901MB2150.namprd19.prod.outlook.com> <01e201d78f8b$602d0bf0$208723d0$@olddog.co.uk> <CA+YzgTsgriyOmn6Keo2L6_fxW9vUxT_xoP+FEuHzASxKki0mFw@mail.gmail.com> <3b88edeb6b084c4d80624704296ed16e@huawei.com> <BY3PR05MB808158BBA685253C2D1A387FC7FD9@BY3PR05MB8081.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BY3PR05MB808158BBA685253C2D1A387FC7FD9@BY3PR05MB8081.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.45.166.104]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_f4e7fb3886d844058aafc249dfe91684huaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/CXm67ucziPocqcsVfuleAeTUG8k>
Subject: Re: [mpls] [Teas] New term for the underlay construct used for slice realization
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2021 16:04:46 -0000

Hi authors of draft-ali-teas-spring-ns-building-blocks/draft-filsfils-spring-srv6-stateless-slice-id/draft-decraene-mpls-slid-encoded-entropy-label-id,

It is known that your drafts are also related with the underlay construct used for slice realization. It also seems that you use the term with "slice" for the underlay construct. In the discussion of TEAS WG, there is some consensus to define a neutral new term without "slice".  Wish to learn your opinions on the new term definition and there would be a convergence on the new term after your participating in the discussion.


Best Regards,
Robin



From: Teas [mailto:teas-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John E Drake
Sent: Monday, August 16, 2021 8:53 PM
To: Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong@huawei.com>om>; EXT-vishnupavan@gmail.com <vishnupavan@gmail.com>om>; Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
Cc: Tarek Saad <tsaad.net@gmail.com>om>; TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Teas] New term for the underlay construct used for slice realization

Hi,

It sounds like slice aggregates, or more generally overlay network service aggregates, are the things which use resource partitions.

Yours Irrespectively,

John



Juniper Business Use Only
From: Teas <teas-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:teas-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Dongjie (Jimmy)
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2021 9:20 AM
To: EXT-vishnupavan@gmail.com<mailto:EXT-vishnupavan@gmail.com> <vishnupavan@gmail.com<mailto:vishnupavan@gmail.com>>; Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk<mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk>>
Cc: Tarek Saad <tsaad.net@gmail.com<mailto:tsaad.net@gmail.com>>; TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org<mailto:teas@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [Teas] New term for the underlay construct used for slice realization

[External Email. Be cautious of content]

Hi Pavan,

Sorry for chiming in, please see some comments inline:

From: Teas [mailto:teas-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Vishnu Pavan Beeram
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2021 1:32 AM
To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk<mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk>>
Cc: Tarek Saad <tsaad.net@gmail.com<mailto:tsaad.net@gmail.com>>; TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org<mailto:teas@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [Teas] New term for the underlay construct used for slice realization

** As a WG participant.. **

Adrian, Hi!

Thanks for your earlier emails in this thread that have helped drill down the discussion to the specific item that needs a fresh term!
Please see inline (prefixed VPB).

-Pavan (as a WG participant)

On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 10:05 AM Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk<mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk>> wrote:
Thanks for your useful opinion, Tarek.

I have no objection to the use of the word "aggregate". It is generally used to express grouping together to treat as a single entity or to be treated in the same way.

But I do like "foo aggregate" to mean that a number of foo have been aggregated.

[VPB] But, that isn't necessarily how IETF has been using the term "aggregate".  "Behavior Aggregate" (as defined in IETF) doesn't mean aggregating behaviors. The same goes for "Treatment Aggregate". Behavior Aggregate (the way we read/interpret it) is an aggregate with a specific behavior.

[Jie] I just checked the definition of the "aggregate" related terms in the RFCs:

Behavior Aggregate (defined in RFC 2474): a collection of packets with the same codepoint crossing a link in a particular direction."

Traffic Aggregate (defined in RFC 3086): a collection of packets with a codepoint that maps to the same PHB, usually in a DS domain or some subset of a DS domain.

Treatment Aggregate (defined in RFC 5127): This term is defined as the aggregate of Diffserv service classes.  A treatment aggregate is concerned only with the forwarding treatment of the aggregated traffic,  which may be marked with multiple DSCPs.

My reading of these definitions is that "aggregate" here means either aggregated packets or aggregated service classes which are treated in the same way on a particular node or link.

While what we want to describe with the new term IMO is "a group of network resources allocated on a set of network nodes and links". Such group of resources can be provisioned in different places of the network and are organized together to provide a specific network-level behavior.

Thus the key information to be delivered with the new term is "a group of organized resources in the network", rather than "aggregated behavior at a particular point".

Best regards,
Jie

So "slice aggregate" would be an aggregation of slices. Your use in I-D.draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet is, therefore, confusing. If the slices are *not* separated out into different flows (or traffic streams) then, yes, you are aggregating slices. But if the slices are separated out, as you describe, then what you have is "IETF network slice traffic stream aggregation".


[VPB] Yes. The definition of the slice aggregate (as defined in draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet) does state that the slice aggregate comprises of one or more IETF network slice traffic streams.  We could have chosen a longer descriptive name, but opted to keep it short.


"Network resource aggregate" would imply that resources have been collected together to be used as a single entity.

[VPB] Not necessarily. "Network Resource Aggregate" isn't meant to imply "aggregating network resources". The intent behind the proposal is to say that it is an aggregate that has specific network resources.

You might do that, for example, with a set of parallel links that can be aggregated (or bundled) and treated as a single link.

I don't think we are aggregating resources in this case. We are grouping, profiling, partitioning, collecting, or even filtering.

Adrian

From: Tarek Saad <tsaad.net@gmail.com<mailto:tsaad.net@gmail.com>>
Sent: 12 August 2021 15:41
To: adrian@olddog.co.uk<mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk>; 'Kiran Makhijani' <kiran.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:kiran.ietf@gmail.com>>; 'John E Drake' <jdrake=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>>; 'Dongjie (Jimmy)' <jie.dong@huawei.com<mailto:jie.dong@huawei.com>>; 'Lizhenbin' <lizhenbin@huawei.com<mailto:lizhenbin@huawei.com>>; teas@ietf.org<mailto:teas@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Teas] New term for the underlay construct used for slice realization

Hi Adrian/all,

As described in I-D.ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition, an IETF Network Slice service may include multiple connections that associate sets of endpoints - each having a set of SLOs/SLEs.
In I-D.draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet, we defined a Slice Aggregate as a construct that comprises of one or more IETF network slice traffic streams that share the same set of SLOs/SLEs.
The Slice Aggregate construct allows aggregating streams from multiple IETF Network Slice connections that share common SLOs/SLEs so that the provider network can offer the same aggregate treatment to them. The Slice Aggregate resources are instantiated on specific network elements as dictated by the Slice Aggregate topology.

Since the scope of I-D.draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet was the realization of IETF Network Slice service in a provider network, we had constrained the aggregate construct to slices.

We understand that the aggregate construct can be generalized to support other services. Let us offer another option to consider for representing the generic construct: "Network Resource Aggregate". There are multiple IETF documents that use the term Aggregate whenever grouping multiple service classes (Behavior Aggregate, Treatment Aggregate, Traffic Aggregate, etc.) - refer to rfc5127 and rfc2474 for more examples.

Regards,
Tarek


From: Teas <teas-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:teas-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk<mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk>>
Date: Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 3:38 PM
To: 'Kiran Makhijani' <kiran.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:kiran.ietf@gmail.com>>, 'John E Drake' <jdrake=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:jdrake=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>>, 'Dongjie (Jimmy)' <jie.dong@huawei.com<mailto:jie.dong@huawei.com>>, 'Lizhenbin' <lizhenbin@huawei.com<mailto:lizhenbin@huawei.com>>, teas@ietf.org<mailto:teas@ietf.org> <teas@ietf.org<mailto:teas@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [Teas] New term for the underlay construct used for slice realization
I wonder whether we can pick this apart and put it back together in a way
that makes sense.

The customer's view of all this is an "IETF network slice service". I think
(hope) we are all agreed on this. The customer may ask (in shorthand) for a
"network slice", but:
- they are talking about IETF technology, so they asking for an "IETF
network slice"
- they actually want behavioural characteristics and have no right to tell
the operator
  how to manage the network, so they are asking for an "IETF network slice
service."

The operator has a bigger set of things to worry about.

1. At the top of the operator's view is the "IETF network slice service" as
    requested by the customer. We have this defined already, so nothing more
    to say.

2. The operator maps the request for a slice service into the "IETF network
    slice" which is the expression of the service in terms of network
connectivity
    in the context of the operator's network. The relationship here is like
the
    relationship between the L3SM and L3NM.

3. At the bottom of their view is an underlying network. The technology of
this
   network depends, of course, on the operator's offering, but this is the
network
   technology being sliced. It may be an IP network, and MPLS network, an
OTN,
   or whatever. I would call this the "Underlay Network." This network may,
in
   turn, be built upon an underlay network of the same or a different
technology,
   and it may be facilitated through network slicing - but this need not
concern
   us here.

4. That leaves the glue in the middle: the bit that enables the scaling and
maps
   the network slice to the network. And I think it is this bit that is
causing the
   most debate about terminology. There are some points to consider:

   a. The term "network resources" applies to the bandwidth, queues,
buffers,
       etc. available on the links and nodes in the network. That may be
       extended to refer to whole links and nodes.

   b. The number of IETF network slice services is potentially large and the
       operator needs a mechanism to scale the mapping of services to
       network resources.

   c. The IETF network slices may be grouped for identical treatment to
       achieve scaling, where the grouping collects IETF network slices with
       similar SLAs.

   d. It may be that different traffic flows within a single IETF network
slice
        have different characteristics. In this case, it may be beneficial
to group
        together some of the traffic flows from different slices.

   e. The grouped slices/flows are enabled in the network using network
        resources assigned for that purpose. The assignment may be anything
        from a fully-fledged virtual network (such as in ACTN or VPN+),
through
        network reserved resources (such as in MPLS-TE), and centrally
        accounted resources (such as SDN or possible SR), to statistically
        shared resources.

There seems to be various points for and against 4d. But, it would appear
that this is an implementation or deployment issue that doesn't change what
the protocols need to do. So we should probably allow it architecturally, or
at least, not disallow it.

Of course, as Kiran points out, 4c/d/e may be a pass-through. That is, it is
not necessary to implement such groupings either because there are only a
few slices (which has been the view of some operators) or because the
network systems can handle the number of slices. And it is in the nature of
architectures of this sort that all functions can be nulled out without loss
of generality, and we have to recall that the internals of provisioning
systems may appear as functional blocks in our architectures, but we don't
compel implementations to adhere to that type of architecture. So I don't
think we have to worry on that account.

And that brings the question of how we name the resources that are gathered
in 4e.

I can't decide whether it is helpful to spend time saying why I don't like
each of the proposed terms. I certainly have things I don't like about (for
example) "slice aggregate" (because of 4d, which means it is really a "slice
sub-flow aggregate"), and I am not a fan of "VTN" (because of "transport"
and maybe it is not really a network). But maybe it is better for me to say
what I think we should call things? I think we have...

-       IETF network slice service (customer view)
-       IETF network slice (operator view)
-       Resource partition (delivery mechanism)
-       Underlay network (network used to support the slice)

Why "resource partition"? Well it is a collection of "nodes, links, and
network resources that are marked within the network for use by a set of
network slice traffic flows".
It is possible that the word "partition" is too strong because it may imply
to some people that resources in a partition cannot be shared, but I don't
feel that.
Softer words than "partition" would be "group", "bundle", "pool", and I
could live with any of them.

Best,
Adrian


-----Original Message-----
From: Teas <teas-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:teas-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Kiran Makhijani
Sent: 11 August 2021 16:00
To: John E Drake <jdrake=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:jdrake=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>>; Dongjie (Jimmy)
<jie.dong@huawei.com<mailto:jie.dong@huawei.com>>; Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com<mailto:lizhenbin@huawei.com>>; teas@ietf.org<mailto:teas@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Teas] New term for the underlay construct used for slice
realization

Hi John, (and all),

Two very basic clarification questions:
1. How do we differentiate between  the slice-segments that are
resource-aware vs those that are not? I had assumed that since a slice
has an SLO, it will need network resource allocations in some form.

2. Is it ok to assume that the customer view of slice is an 'IETF
network slice service' and the 'IETF slice realization' of that service
in a provider network is raises the question of underlay and overlay
constructs. Am I right?
(a) if so, then we are acknowledging  the presence of another layer of
abstraction (for realization). It could be underlay/overlay or
aggregate/??. Then the term 'slice aggregate' is better and my
preference, it is easier to see that different slice-services are
aggregated into a single construct  in a provider network. Use of
underlay/overlay are confusing.
(b) for a leaner provisioning, I would also prefer to see it documented
that the aggregate is optional and it should be possible to directly map
a slice-service to physical or real resources in the network.
specifically useful when a single domain is carving out slices for
different purposes.

Thanks
Kiran


------ Original Message ------
From: "John E Drake" <jdrake=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:jdrake=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>>
To: "Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com<mailto:jie.dong@huawei.com>>; "Lizhenbin"
<lizhenbin@huawei.com<mailto:lizhenbin@huawei.com>>; "teas@ietf.org<mailto:teas@ietf.org>" <teas@ietf.org<mailto:teas@ietf.org>>
Sent: 8/11/2021 5:38:05 AM
Subject: Re: [Teas] New term for the underlay construct used for slice
realization

>Jimmy,
>
>Snipped, comments inline.
>
>Yours Irrespectively,
>
>John
>
>
>Juniper Business Use Only
>
>>  -----Original Message-----
>>  From: Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong@huawei.com<mailto:jie.dong@huawei.com>>
>>  Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2021 11:03 PM
>>  To: John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net<mailto:jdrake@juniper.net>>; Lizhenbin <lizhenbin@huawei.com<mailto:lizhenbin@huawei.com>>;
>>teas@ietf.org<mailto:teas@ietf.org>
>>  Subject: RE: New term for the underlay construct used for slice
realization
>>
>>  [External Email. Be cautious of content]
>>
>underlay construct for network slice realization bound to
>>  > > network slice services? That is, is the underlay construct only for
>>  > > use in network slicing, or should it be generalized for more
possible uses?
>>  >
>>  > [JD] Absolutely yes
>>
>>  [Jie] I guess you mean "Yes" to the latter case, which is "it should be
generalized
>>  for more possible uses", is my understanding correct?
>
>[JD]  Yes to the latter
>
>>
>>  >
>>  > >
>>  > > 2.      If the answer to question 1 is YES, should it reflect the
following
>>  > > characteristics?
>>  > >
>>  > > a.      It is about the underlay
>>  > > b.      It is about the partitioned resources used to deliver the
network slice
>>  > > services
>>  > > c.      It allows the 1:1, N:1, and 1:N mapping models between the
network
>>  > slice
>>  > > services and the underlay construct. The 1:1 and N:1 mapping may be
>>  > > straightforward. Does it also make sense to divide the elements or
>>  > > traffic flows in a single network slice service to carry them in
>>  > > different
>>  > underlay constructs?
>>  >
>>  > [JD]  Yes to all of the above.  Please see:
>>  > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draf<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draf>
>>  > t-drake-bess-enhanced-vpn-06__;!!NEt6yMaO-
>>  gk!TCiJHCZCwFgwpuFoujxVlZ4r9
>>  > F6mLpE4nJ-9zpqkY-kls-ROxL4C2_xNaR2ImI4$
>>  > >
>>  > > Lastly, here are some candidates of the "new term":
>>  > >
>>  > > Option 1: The network slice service is called "overlay slice", then
>>  > > the underlay construct is called "underlay slice".
>>  > >
>>  > > Option 2: The network slice service is called "service slice", then
>>  > > the underlay construct is called "resource slice".
>>  >
>>  > [JD]  I don't think we need another term for what we are already
>>  > calling an 'IETF Network Slice Service'.  Adrian and I are considering
>>  > the term 'resource partition' to describe the partitioning of underlay
>>  > network resources in support of various overlay services such as IETF
Network
>>  Slice Services.
>>  > This is congruent with the ideas expressed in:
>>  > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draf<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draf>
>>  > t-ietf-spring-resource-aware-segmen__;!!NEt6yMaO-
>>  gk!TCiJHCZCwFgwpuFouj
>>  > xVlZ4r9F6mLpE4nJ-9zpqkY-kls-ROxL4C2_xNxEfwaXg$
>>  > ts-03.  What this allows one to build is an 'partitioned underlay
>>  > network topology'.
>>
>>  [Jie] Agree that here we are talking about the term for the underlay
construct.
>>  "Resource partition" captures one of its key characteristics, while IMO
another
>>  thing the term needs to reflect is that the resource partition is needed
on a
>>  subset of the links and nodes (rather than on a single node or link) in
the physical
>>  network, which together builds a logical network topology.
>
>[JD]  In my initial email, above, I was proposing 'partitioned underlay
network topology'
>
>>
>>  Best regards,
>>  Jie
>>
>>  >
>>  > >
>>  > > Your opinion about these candidates are much appreciated. You may
>>  > > also propose other new term if it complies with the above two
points.
>>  >
>>  > [JD]  I think you have exceeded your remit.
>>  >
>>  > >
>>  > >
>>  > >
>>  > > Best Regards,
>>  > > Robin
>>  > >
>>  > > _______________________________________________
>>  > > Teas mailing list
>>  > > Teas@ietf.org<mailto:Teas@ietf.org>
>>  > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/te<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/te>
>>  > > as
>>  > > __;!!N
>>  > > Et6yMaO-gk!Q0ycOf0ELxT6mG1GbnO4LSL-Q99J4uu7jfdUtBECaI-
>>  > > O08HqD31TGJciNjuxL2A$
>>  >
>>  > _______________________________________________
>>  > Teas mailing list
>>  > Teas@ietf.org<mailto:Teas@ietf.org>
>>  > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas>
>>  > __;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!TCiJHCZCwFgwpuFoujxVlZ4r9F6mLpE4nJ-9zpqkY-kls-
>>  ROxL4C2
>>  > _xNDCrPaNQ$
>
>_______________________________________________
>Teas mailing list
>Teas@ietf.org<mailto:Teas@ietf.org>
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!TKJch2dwsJUTEeFWCMLasf9_GayAVTsgrkNK6Ve48YTTS1iD_HNe2dms30OL80Q$>

_______________________________________________
Teas mailing list
Teas@ietf.org<mailto:Teas@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!TKJch2dwsJUTEeFWCMLasf9_GayAVTsgrkNK6Ve48YTTS1iD_HNe2dms30OL80Q$>

_______________________________________________
Teas mailing list
Teas@ietf.org<mailto:Teas@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!TKJch2dwsJUTEeFWCMLasf9_GayAVTsgrkNK6Ve48YTTS1iD_HNe2dms30OL80Q$>
_______________________________________________
Teas mailing list
Teas@ietf.org<mailto:Teas@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!TKJch2dwsJUTEeFWCMLasf9_GayAVTsgrkNK6Ve48YTTS1iD_HNe2dms30OL80Q$>