Re: [Teas-ns-dt] Contribution to new NS Framework draft

["Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <[e-mail]>]

Eric,
Thanks for your response.

In general, I am ok to move my contributions to different sections but since I was not able to add them directly to the GitHub, I wrote them in XML format.

Jari, any decision on this as it would be a good idea to finalize the structure of this draft  in tomorrow’s meeting.

Cheers,

Reza


From: Eric Gray <[e-mail]>
Date: Monday, February 10, 2020 at 8:51 AM
To: Reza Rokui <[e-mail]>om>, LUIS MIGUEL CONTRERAS MURILLO <[e-mail]>om>, Kiran Makhijani <[e-mail]>om>, Sergio Belotti <[e-mail]>om>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>rg>, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko=[e-mail]>rg>, Shunsuke Homma <[e-mail]>om>, Jeff Tantsura <[e-mail]>
Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [Teas-ns-dt] Contribution to new NS Framework draft

Reza,

              Thanks for providing this contribution.

              There was an earlier branch (pull available at https://github.com/teas-wg/teas-ns-dt/pull/5/commits/36ba2d290d9952a7642dc2a6dd6f44c35025700b) created for the framework draft, by Dhruv Dhody, specifically to provide a mapping to ACTN.  We need to discuss that – either via the mailing list, or on one of our conference calls – to determine a disposition for the text Dhruv provided.

              Jari mentioned this at the last conference call meeting, last Thursday.

              If possible, we should look at Dhruv’s contribution, and your own, on today’s call – though I believe you had said you would likely be unable to attend.  If the discussion on the conference call gets to be too complicated there, we should take it off-line and resolve it either via continued E-Mail discussion, or perhaps (just to get a handle on what the intention is) a later call with a smaller number of people to propose some way forward that we might be able to take significant steps toward in time to meet our objective time-line before the March IETF meeting.

              As a provisional summary (please verify – or correct – my understanding):

  1.  Dhruv proposed the addition of 4 references, and 3 paragraphs, to the controller section that essentially provides a description of the relationship of the terminology used in ACTN to the “controller” we describe in this framework draft.
  2.  Your proposal is considerably more complicated in that you provide a table of contents (which I don’t personally see as being especially useful, except as evidence of the complexity of you contribution, which includes six major subsections (with many further subdivisions) and stretches over 10 pages.

              Note that – in the current draft – the section on the controller is a subsection already (subsection 3.3), but I suspect that your intention is that your proposed text would be added (at least) as a separate major section (perhaps between current section 3 (Framework) and 4 (Considerations).

              If we were to keep (mostly) to the current draft structure, adding this text as a new high-level section would seem to require the addition of other new sections corresponding to current sections 3.1, 3.2, 3.4 and 3.5.

              On the other hand, even if we kept this as part of the current subsection (3.3), without some flattening, this would result in addition of new sections along the following lines:
              3.3.1
                             3.3.1.1
                             …
                             3.3.1.4
              3.3.2
              …
              3.3.5
                             3.3.5.1
              3.3.6
                             3.3.6.1
                             …
                             3.3.6.6
                                           3.3.6.6.1
                                           …
                                           3.3.6.6.3
                             3.3.6.7
                                           3.3.6.7.1
                                           3.3.6.7.2

In addition, the added text would more than double the current content of the framework draft.

Again, this would seem to argue that – for balance – we would need to add similar quantities of text for the remaining subsections of section 3.

Remember that there was some agreement that this framework draft should be relatively light.  I doubt that many people would consider a 50-page draft “light.”

--
Eric

From: Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, February 7, 2020 12:03 PM
To: Eric Gray <[e-mail]>om>; LUIS MIGUEL CONTRERAS MURILLO <[e-mail]>om>; Kiran Makhijani <[e-mail]>om>; Belotti, Sergio (Nokia - IT/Vimercate) <[e-mail]>om>; [e-mail]; Jari Arkko <jari.arkko=[e-mail]>rg>; Shunsuke Homma <[e-mail]>om>; Jeff Tantsura <[e-mail]>
Cc: Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Teas-ns-dt] Contribution to new NS Framework draft
Importance: High


Eric, Jari and all,



As per our discussion during yesterday’s DT meeting, attached are my contribution to the new NS Framework draft. A few notes:



  *   I was not able to add these to GitHub. As a result, I wrote them in XML. Both XML and TXT versions are attached.
  *   Eric and Jari, please add them to master document in GitHub
  *   After merge, please review and send your comments/feedbacks in mailing list.
  *   There are still a few sections that I would like to contribute. I will do it later.



Thanks,

Reza