Re: [Teas-ns-dt] Suggestion for "fixing" the tables shared between our DT drafts.

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

All,

I also agree with Eric’s comment. Using “Customer” alone does not add any value and might be also confusing.

Reza


From: Teas-ns-dt <[e-mail]> on behalf of Eric Gray <eric.gray=[e-mail]>
Date: Wednesday, July 8, 2020 at 12:00 PM
To: teas-ns-dt <[e-mail]>rg>, teas-wg/teas-ns-dt <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Teas-ns-dt] Suggestion for "fixing" the tables shared between our DT drafts.

Currently, Figure 4 in the definitions draft and Figure 1 in the Framework draft include (at least as a subset) the following ASCII art figure or at least something very like it).


       +---------------------------------------+
       |              Customer                 |
       +---------------------------------------+
                         ^
                         |
                         v
       +---------------------------------------+
       |   A higher level operation system     |
       | (e.g. e2e network slice orchestrator) |
       +---------------------------------------+
                         ^
                         | TSC NBI
                         v
       +---------------------------------------+
       |       Transport Slice Controller      |
       +---------------------------------------+
                         ^
                         | TSC SBI
                         v
       +---------------------------------------+
       |    Transport Network Controller(s)    |
       +---------------------------------------+


As discussed during the last meeting, there is some ambiguity related to exactly what we mean by “Customer” and whether or not it even makes sense to have this as a block in those figures.

I suggest – as a “fix” – that we consider replacing the above part of both Figures with something along the lines of:

       +---------------------------------------+
       |        Network Slice Consumer         |
       | (e.g. e2e network slice orchestrator) |
       +---------------------------------------+
                         ^
                         | TSC NBI
                         v
       +---------------------------------------+
       |       Transport Slice Controller      |
       +---------------------------------------+
                         ^
                         | TSC SBI
                         v
       +---------------------------------------+
       |    Transport Network Controller(s)    |
       +---------------------------------------+

We do not need to make this change prior to the submission deadline, unless some folks feel that we would have more trouble getting the two drafts adopted in IETF 108.

I would also like to point out that – based on the issues raised with respect to “TSC SBI” and TNC (which are actually out of scope in this effort) – we could possibly/eventually change this figure further to look like this:

       +---------------------------------------+
       |   A higher level operation system     |
       | (e.g. e2e network slice orchestrator) |
       +---------------------------------------+
                         ^
                         | TSC NBI
                         v
       +---------------------------------------+
     +-|       Transport Slice Controller      |-+
     | +---------------------------------------+ |
     |                   ^                       |
     |                   | TSC SBI               |
     |                   v                       |
     | +---------------------------------------+ |
     | |    Transport Network Controller(s)    | |
     | +---------------------------------------+ |
     |                                           |
     +-------------------------------------------+

The big block that includes everything in this figure from the TSC down (i.e. – TSC SBI and TNCs) would be described as logical components that would not be visible to a network slice consumer and are therefore out of scope.

--
Eric