[RTG-DIR] RtgDir Early review: draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices-18.txt

"Hejia (Jia)" <hejia@huawei.com> Sat, 21 January 2023 18:33 UTC

Return-Path: <hejia@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 005C4C1522C1; Sat, 21 Jan 2023 10:33:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-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
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 L34Z8HRzN_t2; Sat, 21 Jan 2023 10:33:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E00E2C14CEED; Sat, 21 Jan 2023 10:33:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhrpeml100005.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.207]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4NzlNJ1yKwz68B7b; Sun, 22 Jan 2023 02:32:47 +0800 (CST)
Received: from canpemm500003.china.huawei.com (7.192.105.39) by lhrpeml100005.china.huawei.com (7.191.160.25) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.34; Sat, 21 Jan 2023 18:33:20 +0000
Received: from canpemm500009.china.huawei.com (7.192.105.203) by canpemm500003.china.huawei.com (7.192.105.39) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.34; Sun, 22 Jan 2023 02:33:17 +0800
Received: from canpemm500009.china.huawei.com ([7.192.105.203]) by canpemm500009.china.huawei.com ([7.192.105.203]) with mapi id 15.01.2375.034; Sun, 22 Jan 2023 02:33:17 +0800
From: "Hejia (Jia)" <hejia@huawei.com>
To: "teas-chairs@ietf.org" <teas-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices.all@ietf.org>
CC: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, "teas@ietf.org" <teas@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: RtgDir Early review: draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices-18.txt
Thread-Index: Adktxmc92zROg0oEQqyNqSoHnp5Rug==
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2023 18:33:17 +0000
Message-ID: <252e40c256e14529a2e356a93bb6c7fd@huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.82.72.231]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_252e40c256e14529a2e356a93bb6c7fdhuaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/oSFN9y5HJ8iXAsOVDw4qJ2DS1Kc>
Subject: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir Early review: draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices-18.txt
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2023 18:33:27 -0000

Hello

I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of this draft.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices/

The routing directorate will, on request from the working group chair, perform an “early” review of a draft before it is submitted for publication to the IESG. The early review can be performed at any time during the draft’s lifetime as a working group document. The purpose of the early review depends on the stage that the document has reached.

The document has finished WGLC and a small update was done. The WG chair requested a RtgDir Early Review before proceeding the document to the next stage. Therefore, my focus for the review was to determine whether the document is ready to be published. Please consider my comments along with the other working group last call comments.

For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see ​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir


Document: draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices-18.txt
Reviewer: Jia He
Review Date: 2023-01-20
Intended Status: Informational

Summary:
This draft is definitely important to facilitate a common understanding of network slicing in the IETF context. It is basically ready for publication, but there are some comments listed below that might be considered prior to being submitted to the IESG.

Comments:

1) IMHO, it might make the reading easier if we can reorganize Section 4 and Section 5 a little bit. Is it possible to move Sections 4.2.1,4.2.2,4.2.3 to Section 5? In this way, Section 4 is left only with the definition/distinction of IETF Network Slice and IETF Network Slice Service. The details of SDP, connectivity construct, SLO, SLE could all be found in Section 5. The proposed reorganization is as follows:
Section 4.2.1 might become a new Section 5.3, and Section 4.2.2 becomes a subsection 5.3.1 under the new Section 5.3. Section 4.2.3 might be added in Section 5.2, as a subsection 5.2.1. That is:

4.  IETF Network Slice
   4.1.  Definition and Scope of IETF Network Slice
   4.2.  IETF Network Slice Service
 5.  IETF Network Slice System Characteristics
   5.1.  Objectives for IETF Network Slices
     5.1.1.  Service Level Objectives
     5.1.2.  Service Level Expectations
   5.2.  IETF Network Slice Service Demarcation Points
     5.2.1.  Ancillary CEs                                                            (originally Section 4.2.3)
   5.3.  Connectivity Constructs                                              (originally Section 4.2.1)
     5.3.1   Mapping Traffic Flows to Network Realizations  (originally Section 4.2.2)
   5.4.  IETF Network Slice Composition

The above comment is editorial and for reference only. It should not be considered as a major issue that blocks the proceeding to the IESG.

2) The first paragraph of Section 6.1 indicates the IETF Network Slice service customer and IETF Network Slice service provider are also stakeholders, but the relationship with the other stakeholders, i.e. Orchestrator, NSC, Network controller, is not mentioned. Is it possible to add some clarifications in the text?

Nits:
1) Section 7.3, Page 33, s/it also a suitable basis..../it is also a suitable basis....
2) Section A.5, Page 47, s/There is nothing special of novel about..../There is nothing special or novel about....


B.R.
Jia