Re: [OPSAWG] CALL FOR ADOPTION: Attachment circuits work

["Wubo (lana)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Joe, all,

I support the adoption of the four drafts. These four drafts are a good supplement to the existing VPN and IETF Network Slice service models. Decoupling ACs from service models improves service deployment flexibility. And the network slice service model has already added ac-as-service method.

I have one review comment for draft-boro-opsawg-ac-lxsm-lxnm-glue. I see that a leaf-list of "ac-ref" is defined for lxsm:site-network-access/ lxnm:vpn-network-access, which I can understand the 1:1 mapping relationship between site-network-access/vpn-network-access and AC, for one-to-many mapping, I would suggest to give some examples to clarify the scenarios.

Thanks,
Bo Wu

From: OPSAWG <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Joe Clarke (jclarke)
Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 9:22 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [OPSAWG] CALL FOR ADOPTION: Attachment circuits work

At IETF 117, we asked the room if there was support to adopt the four attachment circuits drafts.  The room had support (of the 75 present, 18 raised hands for adoption interest, 1 was opposed), but the list is where it counts.

While the drafts aren't too terribly long, there are four of them, so we will do a three week call for adoption.  Please review and comment on-list on the following indicating whether you support their adoption or not:

*         draft-boro-opsawg-teas-common-ac
*         draft-boro-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit
*         draft-boro-opsawg-ntw-attachment-circuit
*         draft-boro-opsawg-ac-lxsm-lxnm-glue

The authors and contributors have all signaled there is no known IPR covering this work.

The CfA will end on October 23.

Thanks.

Joe