Re: [Netslices] Preliminary charter text for discussion

[Xavier de Foy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jeff, thanks for pointing this out.

The focus of the group is really service delivery and customer service
models/interfaces, and activities that help defining those. The text needs
to be more clear. We propose to add text specifically saying that device
models are not within the scope of the group. Along this we tried to
clarify the last paragraph of the scope and the last deliverable (now split
in 2 topics).

(...)
The WG will specify *management requirements and functionalities of data
plane entities as needed to enable the operation  of network slices*. For
example, this may include abstractions of policy control and enforcement,
or gateway functionalities. The WG will also study the mapping between the
abstract information model and managed entities, and will liaise with other
IETF WGs as needed. However, the WG will not attempt to replicate *device
models *and data plane technologies including DetNet, TE-Tunnels, MPLS,
Segment Routing VPNs, NVO3 etc.

III. Deliverables

WG deliverables are listed below and may be split in any number of
documents as determined by the WG:
- Problem statement and use cases for management of network slices.
- Architecture of network slices.
- Information model(s) and operations for network slices on topics
described above in the scope section.
- SDI and CSI interface specifications and relevant YANG models.

*- Specify management requirements and functionalities of data plane
entities as needed to enable the operation of network slices.- Study
mappings towards specific technologies and coordination with relevant WGs
as needed.*
(...)

Best Regards,
Xavier


On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 10:53 AM, Liang GENG <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Jeff and all,
>
>
> I think what COMS is dealing with in terms of SBI is more relevant to
> network configuration models.
>
>
> Technology-dependent ones may be done in existing WGs (i.e. TEAS-ACTN)
> whilst COMS may endeavor to examine generic ones.
>
>
> Best wishes
>
> Liang
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Netslices <[e-mail]> on behalf of Jeff Tantsura
> <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* 31 January 2018 22:48:09
> *To:* qiangli (D); Xavier de Foy; Kiran.Makhijani
> *Cc:* Pedro Martinez-Julia; [e-mail]; Carlos Jesús Bernardos
> Cano
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Netslices] Preliminary charter text for discussion
>
>
> Hi Christina,
>
>
>
> My point – you should never be dealing with device models directly,
> irrespectively of where they were developed.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jeff
>
> *From: *"qiangli (D)" <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Wednesday, January 31, 2018 at 02:53
> *To: *Jeff Tantsura <[e-mail]>, Xavier de Foy <
> [e-mail]>, "Kiran.Makhijani" <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *Pedro Martinez-Julia <[e-mail]>, Carlos Jesús Bernardos
> Cano <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *RE: [Netslices] Preliminary charter text for discussion
>
>
>
> Hi Jeff,
>
>
>
> I think we may understand this sentence from another perspective. As you
> said, there are a number of network/device configuration models, and their
> extension/mapping work is better to be done in corresponding WGs. For those
> technologies that are not chartered by relevant WGs, the mapping/extension
> work could be done in COMS if needed. What do you think?
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Cristina QIANG
>
>
>
> *From:* Netslices [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Jeff
> Tantsura
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 31, 2018 5:09 AM
> *To:* Xavier de Foy <[e-mail]>; Kiran.Makhijani <
> [e-mail]>
> *Cc:* Pedro Martinez-Julia <[e-mail]>; Carlos Jesús Bernardos
> Cano <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [Netslices] Preliminary charter text for discussion
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I don’t think this is right thing to do, device models would be number of
> layers below where you’d be operating.
>
> You might use draft-ietf-opsawg-service-model-explained as a reference.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jeff
>
> *From: *Netslices <[e-mail]> on behalf of Xavier de Foy
> <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 15:44
> *To: *"Kiran.Makhijani" <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *Pedro Martinez-Julia <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <
> [e-mail]>, Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Re: [Netslices] Preliminary charter text for discussion
>
>
>
> Thanks Kiran, yes, I think one example is draft-homma-coms-slice-gateway,
> which looks at the technology-independent requirements on some data plane
> equipment. One interest of this is to help determine the appropriate
> abstractions and attributes to use in the models.
>
> Your wording looks good but I guess we can wait a bit longer for other
> comments (here on the list and during tomorrow's COMS proponents meeting).
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Xavier.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 1:45 PM, Kiran.Makhijani <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Xavier,
>
> This statement may need some additional clarity.
>
> “Study the mappings of technology independent network equipment
> configurations derived from the information model towards specific
> technologies and coordination with relevant WGs as needed.”
>
>
>
> I think what you are trying to say is that equipment configurations may
> need some work to provide slices related capabilities and support. Am I
> correct?
>
> If yes, then instead of use of “study”, we could say something to the
> effect “Identify and derive technology-independent network equipment
> configurations from the Information model in coordination with relevant WGs
> as needed”. This shows a clear deliverable.
>
>
>
> -Kiran
>
> *From: *Netslices <[e-mail]> on behalf of Xavier de Foy
> <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 7:22 AM
> *To: *Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *Pedro Martinez-Julia <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <
> [e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Re: [Netslices] Preliminary charter text for discussion
>
>
>
> Thanks for clarifying the text Pedro. For reference and as base for future
> comments, here is a fixed version of the full text with your wording.
>
> Regards,
>
> Xavier.
>
>
> I. Context
>
> A network slice is a set of related infrastructure resources and service
> functions with qualities that respond to specific requirements, being able
> to cross multiple domains and use heterogeneous technologies. The goal of
> this group is to produce and promote a technology-independent and
> resource-centric management plane for network slices. Resources associated
> with a network slice are normally comprised of physical and logical
> connections in access, aggregation and backbone networks as well as
> computing and storage elements. Service functions associated with a network
> slice include network functions and network function chains pre-defined
> using corresponding network infrastructure elements.
>
> A "Network Slice" is realized using a collection of technologies spanning
> across data, control and management planes. Many of them rely on existing
> IETF technologies including both concluded and in-progress works such as:
> - Data plane: DetNet, TE-Tunnels, MPLS, Segment Routing VPNs, NVO3 etc.
> - Controller and/or control plane: ACTN, PCE and RSVP-TE (requiring LDP,
> BGP, OSPF awareness at level below) etc.
> - Management plane: YANG, OAM etc.
>
> The foundation of COMS is a technology-independent and resource-centric
> management plane. In reality, the network slice provider may have diverse
> technology choices in different domains due to geographical and commercial
> reasons. Therefore, COMS makes no assumption on which technology is used
> for specific domains. The goal of COMS is to define a common and
> inter-operative management mechanism, which is essential for the concept of
> network slicing being adopted in a system with heterogeneous network
> infrastructures and services functions. Major characteristics include:
> - Enabling composition of slices within a single or over multiple domains.
> - Allowing the operation and management of a network slice in a uniform
> manner, even when this network slice span multiple technology and/or
> administrative domains.
> - Enabling deployment of services over individual slices.
>
> II. Scope
>
> The WG will describe an overall architecture for network slicing. To
> manage network slices in a technology-independent manner, the network slice
> provider (NSP) will need to communicate with a network slice orchestrator
> (NSO) over a COMS Service Delivery Interface (SDI). The COMS SDI can also
> be used between network slice orchestrators, enabling hierarchical
> management through the notion of network slice subnets. Network slices will
> be leased to tenants, which will be able to use Customer Service Interface
> (CSI) exposed by the NS provider to run management tasks (e.g., on-demand
> measurement) within their slice instance under certain policies.
>
> The WG will describe an information model representing a network slice,
> accounting for the key elements used in network slices: connectivity,
> compute, storage resources, network and service functions — this
> information model includes the representation of managed objects and
> corresponding management and operations, will guide the design of data
> models on SDI and CSI and also will enable orchestrators interworking.
>
> The WG will specify requirements, operations and management
> functionalities on network slicing interfaces SDI and/or CSI including:
> 1 Network slice service profile, e.g. set by NSP over SDI, including
> high-level parameters for network infrastructures and service functions,
> together with their corresponding performance requirements.
> 2 Lifecycle management of network slice.
> 3 Other FCAPS functions. An important task of NSP is to aggregate faults,
> performance, status information and performance guarantees for certain
> services.
> 4 Slice composition or stitching in multi-domain environment.
> 5 Slice management by the tenant under the control of NSP, including
> deploying network services over a slice.
>
> The WG will specify requirements and functionalities of data plane
> entities as needed to enable the management of network slices. For example,
> this may include abstractions of policy control and enforcement, or gateway
> functionalities. The WG will also study the mapping between the abstract
> information model and managed entities, and will liaise with other IETF WGs
> as needed. However, the WG will not attempt to replicate data plane
> technologies including DetNet, TE-Tunnels, MPLS, Segment Routing VPNs, NVO3
> etc.
>
> III. Deliverables
>
> WG deliverables are listed below and may be split in any number of
> documents as determined by the WG:
> - Problem statement and use cases for management of network slices.
> - Architecture of network slices.
> - Information model(s) and operations for network slices on topics
> described above in the scope section.
> - SDI and CSI interface specifications and relevant YANG models.
> - Study the mappings of technology independent network equipment
> configurations derived from the information model towards specific
> technologies and coordination with relevant WGs as needed.
>
> IV. Milestones
>
> Dec 2018     Problem Statement, use cases and architecture
> Dec 2018     Common information model and related YANG model
> June 2019    Network slices composition and interworking
> October 2019 FCAPS management functions and operations on network
>              slices including abstractions of policy control and
>              enforcement, or gateway functionalities.
> March 2020   SDI and CSI interface specifications and relevant YANG models
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ Netslices mailing list
> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netslices
>