Re: [Netslices] draft-qiang-netslices-gap-analysis-00 Uploaded

Hi Henk,

Thank you for your comments, please see my reply inline marked as [Cr].

Best regards,

Cristina QIANG

-----Original Message-----
From: Netslices [mailto:netslices-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Henk Birkholz
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2017 10:21 PM
To: netslices@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Netslices] draft-qiang-netslices-gap-analysis-00 Uploaded

Hello,

I have just skimmed the first part of the document.

1.) If you pull in terms defined in other drafts or (proposed) standards, please include the references. (random example: MDSC is defined in I.D-ietf-teas-actn-framework, I think).

If it is not getting too big and if it is vital to grasp the context of the draft, I would suggest to pull in the complete definition (and still reference the source, of course).

[Cr] will do in the next version.

2.) Some terms I can only guess what they mean in this context, examples include terminal, guarantee, or the scope of the expression "individual parts and pieces of the overall system", which is probably something like every system entity or subsystem that is required to provide the capabilities of a differentiable network slice?

[Cr] I think the term "(network slice) terminal" has been defined in draft-geng-netslices-architecture-01. We will use more explicit expression and define necessary terms later. 

3.) In general, I like section 4.1 very much. It enables a good understanding of what are important characteristics of a network slice that are potential KPI.

4.) I would like to see an explicit differentiation and definition of the terms action, task, procedure (and maybe even a "middle-layer" term between action and procedure called activity - a building block of actions that can compose procedures). The terms mentioned above imply a specialization (and there for a some sort of taxonomy) that can be used to map actual running solutions and actions that can be performed by them - to more general procedures that are required to create a network slice on an architectural level.

[Cr] same reply as above.

5.) I like the Topology Hierarchy (Stack) in Figure 2, but I am not sure if the expressiveness of, e.g. draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology
satisfies the requirements of network slicing. For example, top-of-the rack data plane units, which physical ports are mapped to multiple redundant endpoints that maintain a partially merged control plane (to handle the redundant mapping) but are separate information systems on the management plane cannot be modeled, I think. This is just one of the more complex examples that fall under the scope of resilience (see below).

6.) In general, the topic Guaranteed Slice Performance and Isolation does not seem to address availability or resilience of a or inside a network slice. Is that out of scope? That is why I would like a better understanding of what can be "guaranteed" in general (see item 2. above).

[Cr] a network slice could be simply regarded as a logical network resource/function union that owned by a tenant. To a certain extent, how to manage and use this resource (including how to achieve the availability or resilience inside a network slice) is the tenant's business, that is out of the scope of this topic. As table 1 illustrated, the guaranteed slice performance and isolation topic aims to discuss that the isolation among different network slices is quite necessary for guaranteeing the performance, security, operation, reliability, etc. 

7.) I find the title 7.3. Abstraction of Network in Network confusing after reading the content of that section.

[Cr] The subsection 7.3 mainly discusses the abstraction of a network slice that across multiple domains. What do you think of the title "multi-domain abstraction"? Or do you have any good suggestions?

This was just a quick first pass. In general, this is an excellent 
contribution and really focuses an essential part of the ongoing 
activities! Thank you!

Viele Grüße,

Henk

On 06/02/2017 11:36 AM, qiangli (D) wrote:
> Dear All,
> 
> We have upload "Gap Analysis for Network Slicing" draft 00 on 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-qiang-netslices-gap-analysis/?include_text=1
> 
> Your comments and reviews are greatly appreciated.
> 
> Abstract:
> 
>     This document presents network slicing differentiation from the non-
> 
>     partition network or from simply partition of connectivity resources.
> 
>     It lists 15 standardization gaps related to 6 key requirements for
> 
>     network slicing.  It also presents an analysis of existing related
> 
>     work and other potential solutions on network slicing.
> 
>     This gap analysis document aims to provide a basis for future works
> 
>     in network slicing.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Co-authors
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Netslices mailing list
> Netslices@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netslices
> 

_______________________________________________
Netslices mailing list
Netslices@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netslices