[Netslices] COMS BoF Objectives

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Mon, 26 February 2018 21:02 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: netslices@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netslices@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D153B1241F8 for <netslices@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Feb 2018 13:02:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.62
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.62 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] 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 zDhuzGhgoDGJ for <netslices@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Feb 2018 13:02:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mta6.iomartmail.com (mta6.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.156]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39B9012711A for <NetSlices@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Feb 2018 13:02:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vs1.iomartmail.com (vs1.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.121]) by mta6.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id w1QL22l1017302; Mon, 26 Feb 2018 21:02:02 GMT
Received: from vs1.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93C182203B; Mon, 26 Feb 2018 21:02:02 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.248]) by vs1.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E9AF2203A; Mon, 26 Feb 2018 21:02:02 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from 950129200 ([193.57.120.23]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id w1QL20sW026340 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 26 Feb 2018 21:02:01 GMT
Reply-To: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: "'NetSlices'" <NetSlices@ietf.org>
Cc: <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 21:02:00 -0000
Message-ID: <020d01d3af45$0cb9e530$262daf90$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AdOvRN8/i8i9cTxsQ0mF/eYT2jD0jA==
Content-Language: en-gb
X-Originating-IP: 193.57.120.23
X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.0.1013-23688.003
X-TM-AS-Result: No--15.029-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--15.029-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.1013-23688.003
X-TMASE-Result: 10--15.029000-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: RCsvJ8LHv2kIbamlYuC6xPDrFod3YoIK0w14HFJQjaObUktpKVcKHQGa WqFPvEel7s149o3d/dwsaEi65axGR6VDPSjL3ziRVLLSJen1JCcLce5ZyDJAJpUQzHWBKOFAK93 7aFdF5XO0RWzCxfH8GxoUqX3CkGAU5VtV90uxxtfFlCgYxEaGE9ZKsq3DGpalRJWmeOMHa+Rhej p7pwzKTPK2UTIXij9b6PqqItKfJWDgpCfL46wSl6Skqjfmd3aeX6IRwqkp2m7b6Y+fnTZUL/bUh Pv66jYYMwE0P2gaX7VumbNFAFJX+9TO9w9KisCUBQo00KRXInG5pw2tsxj4tPgnJH5vm2+gBpNq UzwLvvf7VLhu60jHpptdZQUgGr+pTX7PJ/OU3vL+xOhjarOnHt0H8LFZNFG7JQhrLH5KSJ0=
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netslices/OfA8aanltJgvmIvdtQXhF1-vpEA>
Subject: [Netslices] COMS BoF Objectives
X-BeenThere: netslices@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This list is intended for discussion and review of network slicing at IETF." <netslices.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netslices>, <mailto:netslices-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netslices/>
List-Post: <mailto:netslices@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netslices-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netslices>, <mailto:netslices-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 21:02:10 -0000

All,

Gonzalo and I have just been chatting with the (three) OPS ADs about how to
handle this BoF.

The first thing to note is that it is a non-WG-forming BoF. That means that
discussions of "What the WG will do" or "What the WG charter will look like"
need not trouble us. We can focus on what the problem space is and what work the
IETF might do without worrying about how that work might be split up or packaged
for specific WGs.

Second thing to note is that we have 2 hours. You can achieve a lot in 2 hours,
but you have to focus. You have to know what it is you want to say and why. You
can't spend time on peripherals or waffle.

In trying to work out what would constitute a "successful BoF" we decided that
the answer is clarity of understanding. If, at the end of the BoF the people in
the room (and especially the OPS ADs) have a good, clear, and shared
understanding of the following points, we will have succeeded. The ideal would
be that, after the BoF, anyone from the room could explain these points to a
newcomer.

- What is the problem space? This is not just what is in scope, but also what is
out of scope. In particular, it is the focus of the problem: *the* thing that
you want to achieve in an operational network.

- What is your proposed solution architecture?

- What interfaces (precisely!) are you proposing should be
   worked on?

- What deliverables do you envision and (since no one can have
   everything they want immediately) how would you prioritize the
   deliverables and where would you draw the line between "must
   have" and "can live without for now"?

- How does this proposed work relate to other IETF work? Building
  a relationship with other work can help people see the bigger
  picture. How does other IETF work interface to this solution?

- Is this "top-down" approach consistent with the way the IETF works?
   Should some or all of the work be located in another body or within
   OpenSource? Why?

I suggest not leaping in at once with responses to these points: you don't need
to convince your chairs, you need to work out how to convince your audience. You
need to be working on the list to plan how to tackle this question.

I also suggest you hold back on agenda requests or proposals. That will all
become clear when you know what/how you want to explain.

 Instead, spend some time getting clear in your heads what it is that people
commonly misunderstand about this work and how it could be explained better.
What is the core essence that has to be got over to the audience, and what is
marginal or add-on that could be left out of explanations? Where do you need to
use new/different words to convey meaning that is (overly) familiar to you?
Where would a picture serve better than words?

Our job as BoF chairs will be to help you achieve these things, but also to be
hard in our friendship! Expect us to stir things up a bit to make you all (and
your audience) think. Expect us to insist on you injecting a good dose of
reality into what you say. Expect hard questions.

Best,
Adrian (per pro Gonzalo)