Re: [nmrg] network digital twin vs. digital twin network
CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO <cjbc@it.uc3m.es> Tue, 07 March 2023 15:08 UTC
Return-Path: <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
X-Original-To: nmrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nmrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3911C151AEB for <nmrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Mar 2023 07:08:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.995
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.995 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=it.uc3m.es
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id huKrwPUsjQfA for <nmrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Mar 2023 07:08:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22b.google.com (mail-lj1-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22b]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1A69C151524 for <nmrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 7 Mar 2023 07:08:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22b.google.com with SMTP id b10so13534065ljr.0 for <nmrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 07 Mar 2023 07:08:52 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=it.uc3m.es; s=google; t=1678201730; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=WbXOkHuGVzjrFIkgi7JFnmjjtqV1Bj3qBWsrofU6f9I=; b=Mndh9DZyDL1/Z7O+jLV06LCs3QCzALLcq9HeOHN7qxuiaQuQQ4qJ/opf42rvV78Ym6 4ZFWGhVB0bmqNrU6SijXRjDprgirizgserlkR0VvJvVSDB42ifY6PCG+JUIfe8vjej1b 1ccNicLVMGM1W4ToIDPHVaLAo5pgl+5NsQdLb6hrCHuQS3B+HLKQbRLwlBM8GJPjZE8W 0Td0Pp8gC9CH45osAgw16VawshFGUrX6s2flv7u3RV/6nvpbUwtz3fVo4eDl7aGY8Ul+ Qm0TXLRnHTT19Y63wIF8t2k7sqqqR2ZbuquJXD/7qc27eY0O/n3RyorERng1J9noJh5j lLTw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1678201730; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=WbXOkHuGVzjrFIkgi7JFnmjjtqV1Bj3qBWsrofU6f9I=; b=LlqWXC4Z1DTzy0Xq9bnhaUcbsY+XuYCDPbaZcM4xkptBrg1CEETilJGXEA3HVIRP6v 2XIrewIf+0Y1KHYT93WPFIAKsu1t28eNmeodr5qlqwj9gCVAqcnuW1vOhND2hs3+SHJm MGhCMFtXLodzDOAxXpgSg9tpooq65Wgs77f5BEUxxNPJ5ohBmWKFLJYMVH7G3nh5KBbV ihbrM7GCyirQ+Gr7GYlZpP72nJgoyi1WbPMiQbgXwDtFsXnB0ePK6w2wS28yF++GUd4v zSi3b5Y6hVqBAVG0BeF6/92GnoJcgkDjWsTNgO+FtVTjaJrubVFw0a9zFMWqVWG2/zl1 O2sQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKXOvHuiktiX/TTV34Qy5d+T5Y+aBaJCvTn5NQzDyvGNzAGvG2Y6 +aQQi2rx1CpEQaiRl84rR3ZPlwiqL6DG48hSQt+MNB4A3k2qnqvp
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set+ZH3Xz3hVZVUVeBfDUeqaaOpB8AYUDplEHet2rVDbY6Y8hGHZ65hAqXF1UNC8RwphO7D6ikXVsCzPrIjT464A=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:11d0:b0:295:d63a:949e with SMTP id z16-20020a05651c11d000b00295d63a949emr4521366ljo.4.1678201730339; Tue, 07 Mar 2023 07:08:50 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230307142824.qzzzbwyuftsyu5e7@anna> <6ad6b91698a449af9c37b2666e9b4d89@huawei.com> <VE1PR06MB7150263A1ADB2B7C7CAEC614DFB79@VE1PR06MB7150.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <VE1PR06MB7150263A1ADB2B7C7CAEC614DFB79@VE1PR06MB7150.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
From: CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2023 16:08:34 +0100
Message-ID: <CALypLp_kL2t=fz6wWYZe1hinrVM=EkdOXhkQ+ACMhN3EDHbWmA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Diego R. Lopez" <diego.r.lopez@telefonica.com>
Cc: Christopher Janz <christopher.janz=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Jürgen Schönwälder <jschoenwaelder@constructor.university>, "nmrg@irtf.org" <nmrg@irtf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000005b905f650ca1b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nmrg/GL7FU6IroF6LJ98h44Qv2W2q5iw>
Subject: Re: [nmrg] network digital twin vs. digital twin network
X-BeenThere: nmrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Management Research Group discussion list <nmrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/nmrg>, <mailto:nmrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/nmrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:nmrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nmrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmrg>, <mailto:nmrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2023 15:08:57 -0000
Hi, >From a non-coauthor perspective, I think in the academic literature the term NDT is the one most widely used. I agree with Diego that this is the one that should be used in the document. My two cents, Carlos On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 4:01 PM Diego R. Lopez <diego.r.lopez@telefonica.com> wrote: > Hi, > > > > Thanks for the observation and the recommendations. > > > > As one of the coauthors, let me say we already went through this > discussion some time ago, and my reckoning is that the use of the term DTN, > initially employed, was caused by some language misunderstanding, and that > we all agreed on moving towards the more adequate NDT. If there are still > remnants of the old naming in the document, this is something that > obviously needs to be solved. > > > > Be goode, > > > > -- > > “Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno” > > > > Dr Diego R. Lopez > > Telefonica I+D > > *https://www.linkedin.com/dr2lopez/ <https://www.linkedin.com/dr2lopez/>* > > > > e-mail: diego.r.lopez@telefonica.com > > Mobile: +34 682 051 091 > > --------------------------------- > > > > On 7/3/23, 15:38, <nmrg-bounces@irtf.org> wrote: > > > > Good observation Juergen. I'll let the authors of [1] speak with respect > to their document, but looking elsewhere (e.g., ETSI ZSM, papers, etc.) as > well as at normal English language usage: > > - the digital twin of a network is properly a 'network digital twin' - > this is the clear native interpretation of the term as well as the broadly > used sense. > - 'digital twin network' does not broadly have the connotation you suggest > (a network operated by a digital twin), nor does the term intrinsically > suggest such a meaning. If anything, the term suggests a network used in > the implementation of a digital twin. I'd thus suggest the term is not a > very useful one. > > Best > > Chris > > > -----Original Message----- > From: nmrg <nmrg-bounces@irtf.org> On Behalf Of Jürgen Schönwälder > Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 9:28 AM > To: nmrg@irtf.org > Subject: [nmrg] network digital twin vs. digital twin network > > Hi, > > I see both terms being used in [1] but only one of them is defined and I > am a bit confused about what the exect difference is between these two > terms. Perhaps both should have a clear and explicit definition? > > Naively, I assumed that the digitial twin of a network would be called a > 'network digital twin' and that a network that is operated by using digital > twins as a 'digital twin network' but that does not seem to align with what > [1] says. > > /js > > [1] <draft-irtf-nmrg-network-digital-twin-arch-02> > > -- > Jürgen Schönwälder Constructor University Bremen gGmbH > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://constructor.university/> > > _______________________________________________ > nmrg mailing list > nmrg@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmrg > _______________________________________________ > nmrg mailing list > nmrg@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmrg > > ------------------------------ > > Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario, > puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso > exclusivo de la persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el > destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la lectura, utilización, > divulgación y/o copia sin autorización puede estar prohibida en virtud de > la legislación vigente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos > que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y proceda a su > destrucción. > > The information contained in this transmission is confidential and > privileged information intended only for the use of the individual or > entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended > recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or > copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received > this transmission in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the > sender that you have received this communication in error and then delete > it. > > Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinatário, > pode conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e é para uso exclusivo > da pessoa ou entidade de destino. Se não é vossa senhoria o destinatário > indicado, fica notificado de que a leitura, utilização, divulgação e/ou > cópia sem autorização pode estar proibida em virtude da legislação vigente. > Se recebeu esta mensagem por erro, rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique > imediatamente por esta mesma via e proceda a sua destruição > _______________________________________________ > nmrg mailing list > nmrg@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmrg >
- [nmrg] network digital twin vs. digital twin netw… Jürgen Schönwälder
- Re: [nmrg] network digital twin vs. digital twin … Christopher Janz
- Re: [nmrg] network digital twin vs. digital twin … Diego R. Lopez
- Re: [nmrg] network digital twin vs. digital twin … CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO
- Re: [nmrg] network digital twin vs. digital twin … Cheng Zhou
- Re: [nmrg] network digital twin vs. digital twin … Jürgen Schönwälder
- Re: [nmrg] network digital twin vs. digital twin … Christopher Janz
- Re: [nmrg] network digital twin vs. digital twin … Jürgen Schönwälder
- Re: [nmrg] network digital twin vs. digital twin … Christopher Janz
- Re: [nmrg] network digital twin vs. digital twin … Christopher Janz
- Re: [nmrg] network digital twin vs. digital twin … Alexander Clemm
- Re: [nmrg] network digital twin vs. digital twin … Christopher Janz
- Re: [nmrg] network digital twin vs. digital twin … Alexander Clemm
- Re: [nmrg] network digital twin vs. digital twin … Qin Wu
- Re: [nmrg] network digital twin vs. digital twin … Pedro Martinez-Julia
- Re: [nmrg] network digital twin vs. digital twin … Cheng Zhou
- [nmrg] physical network / physical entity; RE: ne… Schwarz Albrecht (ETAS-DAP/XPC-Fe6)
- Re: [nmrg] physical network / physical entity; RE… Cheng Zhou
- Re: [nmrg] physical network / physical entity; RE… Schwarz Albrecht (ETAS-DAP/XPC-Fe6)