Re: [Teas-ns-dt] Models Discussion - specifically, SLO groups, in the current model draft

"Wubo (lana)" <lana.wubo@huawei.com> Wed, 22 April 2020 06:36 UTC

From: "Wubo (lana)" <lana.wubo@huawei.com>
To: Eric Gray <eric.gray=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "teas-ns-dt@ietf.org" <teas-ns-dt@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Models Discussion - specifically, SLO groups, in the current model draft
Thread-Index: AdYYbU6Kl2JUHyJOQ9+h2Nev2gYGvQ==
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 06:36:38 +0000
Message-ID: <454ae0b8007e4cb4a8dcc72118b54ece@huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_454ae0b8007e4cb4a8dcc72118b54ecehuaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas-ns-dt/-AbvCRnDqYZbivD_MLMBuUkoFM0>
Subject: Re: [Teas-ns-dt] Models Discussion - specifically, SLO groups, in the current model draft
Precedence: list

Hi Eric,

I agree what I said at the meeting is confusing and there is no agreement on the definition of the TS End point yet.
Thank you for setting up the thread for the discussion. I think endpoint definition is a key part of the NBI model.

Please see the reply inline below.

Thanks,
Bo

·¢¼þÈË: Teas-ns-dt [mailto:teas-ns-dt-bounces@ietf.org] ´ú±í Eric Gray
·¢ËÍÊ±¼ä: 2020Äê4ÔÂ21ÈÕ 0:55
ÊÕ¼þÈË: teas-ns-dt@ietf.org
Ö÷Ìâ: [Teas-ns-dt] Models Discussion - specifically, SLO groups, in the current model draft

Fellow design team members, et al:

I have a number of issues with both the draft, and the discussions we¡¯ve had about it, but I would prefer to use this thread to focus on the issues with Transport Slice ¡°End-Points¡± (or, perhaps, Transport Slice Members.  I have already tried to start a discussion about the issues with ¡°SLO Group¡± as discussed in today¡¯s meeting and in the draft.

Again, AFAICT, we¡¯ve had very little discussion about Modeling work on the mailing list ¨C beyond simple announcements about new versions of Bo¡¯s draft, and a few (mostly unanswered) comments about the draft.

And, again, I have looked at the latest version of the model draft, and I was present during the discussion of this draft today, and the discussion of the previous draft last Thursday.

In today¡¯s discussion, we talked briefly about TS end-points.  A number of examples were given, and Bo said that we had likely reached some agreement of what we mean by a transport slice end-point.  I would like to have a better understanding of what that agreement is, because I did not see any such agreement.

Speaking as someone who has been to this rodeo a few times, I think what we really need to do is define an abstract interface that exists between a transport slice realization and a transport slice user..

It is not clear to me that we have even agreed whether or not we want to define that abstract interface in a way that would mean it exists ¡°on the wire¡± (the link between a TS and its user) or on a node at one end of the ¡°wire¡± or the other (or both ends).
[Bo] The TS Endpoint definition in the draft is a logical identifier, which could be existed on either end of the ¡°wire¡±. So it means both ends, and ¡®node-id, tp-id and ts-traffic-criteria¡¯
are used to specify, e.g. node-id could be CE node or PE node, the higher system and TSC need to agree.
If you think that the figure, EP ¡°on the wire¡±, is misleading, we will correct it in the next revision.

If we do think we have such an agreement, I would prefer to see it very clearly spelled out, before  signing off on it.

--
Eric

--
Eric

[Teas-ns-dt] Models Discussion - specifically, SL… Eric Gray
Re: [Teas-ns-dt] Models Discussion - specifically… Wubo (lana)