Re: [Teas-ns-dt] Figure in the ACTN Applicability section

Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 14 May 2020 13:29 UTC

Return-Path: <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: teas-ns-dt@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: teas-ns-dt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5C883A0A3D for <teas-ns-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 May 2020 06:29:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HiV4lX2bG97k for <teas-ns-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 May 2020 06:29:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-il1-x136.google.com (mail-il1-x136.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA9513A08D1 for <teas-ns-dt@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 May 2020 06:29:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-il1-x136.google.com with SMTP id t12so1158497ile.9 for <teas-ns-dt@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 May 2020 06:29:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Zv7B08uug8NGJ+zwQgPTufkDAGue82JwueBhdS7Z2v4=; b=DgEMzhXp1q8d/oXpDqtSYI02eC7yUFxW5mESxbGQXliN81IIHyoqFc+qu5hZvpCaui pWYnmcKA46x1XmJxZ2pSDuooqqUxp+xHoIT6Z5kOhGpk6Rctywul8BBiFJfvgGixiAbj muHkltdj5uiNO22JiFcC8YyAwJWfInBLDab2FCE7PZ2wf1d9wYjFohGJpmqILXDYDMhQ mkX/cNCPisdouxBV2YXtopeoXWi3iM2kwleEClcO/t3yXAHOCOFK0M0EklTQNdjsQ9wq qzX/kS4o04RpR0B5csZqQJCcWLvIy3/Fivml8sTJyNzweZKqfvxBTPR6pWfleOdmcjIf RYLQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Zv7B08uug8NGJ+zwQgPTufkDAGue82JwueBhdS7Z2v4=; b=onBHXcDa5BbPttEdIWu9BEcZxaXLU8w4QzWgS/Z2InJcHgzr5QXrKXmhuhWH4p/Nq0 0rNZM+X7tWNFHSz5ueajBNLWrNMAwRggJ7Mp5yy4yTi+CobH9jMWSZUgkirxD2YHRVa+ bvW7GJpojQ/WOodtckR6SN5SBLSuDgO/gG2+u5rdQJ2/lzHNJqVpmOpVKfaFouRI4xTF P/VhmP07+Iq+WgJhwHrUdNCy5gbohJ0lacvUTriFb7iXUMtaDTylxr3zPfCaVKe9Uz/D wFoNThU1dw+GR7RzlJVsqUNwr6eCzx0MFykH8XOHRoRpcgHK7X5iOr/NIOVYwx82/kDx HMnQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533Ht3z3lKtRyk28naHgPJgWMWI4SHA3M7tNWmvpIETHgQEmBx1x L3nFFGb0LmBFox1KAGBsRrRR1g5Oh6ZHmzlCyh4Vjay5
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyNcVjNLVny/FsadAGiU04JdsZitxVZKJYDRvOTJmVxbIoFc6ox7Z8KPPvz2dAZgU7MGi07RkcrtCmm50u4W1k=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:c6ca:: with SMTP id v10mr4546621ilm.181.1589462962857; Thu, 14 May 2020 06:29:22 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <MN2PR15MB3103D60D4BBAD5D44C24C2DA97BE0@MN2PR15MB3103.namprd15.prod.outlook.com> <CAE4dcxm=XudcNfc17dosM2BQcPJx5br2WgYpfqnnK=Bcs6hA0w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAE4dcxm=XudcNfc17dosM2BQcPJx5br2WgYpfqnnK=Bcs6hA0w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2020 09:29:11 -0400
Message-ID: <CAEz6PPQSsgvxGPfTKtVkx=RPF3Y2O_9mhMqgi4XjeFjvGEEjEQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Luis M. Contreras" <contreras.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: Eric Gray <eric.gray=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "teas-ns-dt@ietf.org" <teas-ns-dt@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000048ed1105a59bafc9"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas-ns-dt/CMaT3zMeH1mQYf7CTNRC0JtFgaU>
Subject: Re: [Teas-ns-dt] Figure in the ACTN Applicability section
X-BeenThere: teas-ns-dt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: TEAS Network Slicing Design Team <teas-ns-dt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/teas-ns-dt>, <mailto:teas-ns-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas-ns-dt/>
List-Post: <mailto:teas-ns-dt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:teas-ns-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas-ns-dt>, <mailto:teas-ns-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 May 2020 13:29:27 -0000

Luis's diagram makes more sense to me. Some additional thoughts:

1) Transport Slice Controller (TSC) can be hierarchical, so we can have
TSC-H and TSC-L, to match MDSC-H and MDSC-L.
2) The -02 version does not clearly define "A higher level system", which
is needed.
3) It is needed to clearly describe which of these components are
slice-aware and which are not.

Thanks,
- Xufeng

On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 12:03 PM Luis M. Contreras <contreras.ietf@gmail.com>
wrote:

> (My apologies for the mail before, with the Confidential Notes by default.
> Please, ignore it. Repeating mail here).
>
> Hi Eric, all,
>
>
>
> Thanks for addressing this point.
>
>
>
> I have some few comments and suggestions.
>
>
>
> 1/ Regarding the figure, I think that as it is now mix things a bit. In my
> personal subjective view I think it provides a view of how to fit TSC into
> ACTN rather in the other way around. My suggestion would be to depict the
> comparison as in the figure below (ignore the service model naming by now
> for this point). I think it becomes more clear, but again this is
> subjective, of course.
>
>
>
> 2/ Regarding the service model naming. I have revisited RFC8309 and I
> think that the proper mapping to service models in the case of TSC would be
> the one proposed in the figure below on the left-hand side (please, check
> Figure 3 in RFC8309).
>
>
>
> Here is the figure I propose.
>
>
>
> Service Model in                                              ACTN
>
>  Transport Slice        Transport Slice Framework           Terminology
>
> Framework [RFC8309]                                         and Concepts
>
> -------------          -------------------------           ------------
>
>                  +------------------------------------+
>
>                  |             Customer               |  |
>
>                  +------------------------------------+
>
>    Customer                        A                     |
>
>    Service                         |
>
>    Model                           V                     |
>
>                  +------------------------------------+
>
>                  |      A highter level system        |  |   +-----+
>
>                  |(e.g e2e network slice orchestrator)| ===> | CNC |
>
>                  +------------------------------------+  |   +-----+
>
>    Service                         A                            A
>
>    Delivery                        | TSC NBI             |      | CMI
>
>    Model                           V                            V (LxSM)
>
>                  +------------------------------------+  |   +-------+
>
>                  |      Transport Slice Controller    | ===> | MDSC-H|
>
>                  +------------------------------------+  |   +-------+
>
>                                    A                            A
>
>                                    |                     |      |
>
>                                    |                            V
>
>    Network                         |                     |   +-------+
>
>    Configuration                   | TSC SBI                 |MDSC-L |
>
>    Model                           |                     |   +-------+
>
>                                   |                            A
>
>                                    |                     |      | MPI
>
>                                    V                            V (LxNM)
>
>                  +------------------------------------+  |   +-----+
>
>                  |        Network Controller(s)       | ===> | PNC |
>
>                  +------------------------------------+  |   +-----+
>
>
>
>
>
> The text you propose depends totally on the final figure and the
> consideration of the service models that apply, so I would prefer to
> discuss first about the figure and once it is closed to discuss the text,
> to ensure consistency.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Luis
>
> El mar., 12 may. 2020 a las 16:03, Eric Gray (<eric.gray=
> 40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>) escribió:
>
>> John and I had a discussion with Dhruv about some ambiguity in the
>> relationship between some of the entities in the ACTN architecture and the
>> related concepts in our NS-DT work in the Framework draft.
>>
>>
>>
>> The upshot is that there is a bit of a slushy relationship between some
>> of the terms that we (the NS design team) have defined (see the definitions
>> draft) and loosely corresponding concepts defined in ACTN.  In particular,
>> there are currently issues with the positioning of the TSC as directly
>> analogous to MDSC, impacting interfaces between these logical components as
>> well.
>>
>>
>>
>> After a few iterations in discussion, Dhruv, John and I agreed to propose
>> a replacement figure and text as shown immediately below.
>>
>>
>>
>>        +------------------------------------+
>>
>>        |             Customer               |  |
>>
>>        +------------------------------------+
>>
>>                          A                     |     ACTN
>>
>>                          |                        Terminology
>>
>>                          V                     |  and Concepts
>>
>>        +------------------------------------+
>>
>>        |      A highter level system        |  |   +-----+
>>
>>        |(e.g e2e network slice orchestrator)| ===> | CNC |
>>
>>        +------------------------------------+  |   +-----+
>>
>>                          A                            A
>>
>>                          | TSC NBI             |      | CMI
>>
>>                          V                            V (LxSM)
>>
>>        +------------------------------------+  |   +-------+
>>
>>        |      Transport Slice Controller    | ===> | MDSC-H|
>>
>>        +------------------------------------+  |   +-------+
>>
>>                          A                            A
>>
>>                          | TSC SBI (LxNM)      |      |
>>
>>                          V                            V
>>
>>        +------------------------------------+  |   +-------+
>>
>>        |        Network Controller(s)       | ===> |MDSC-L |
>>
>>        +------------------------------------+  |   +-------+
>>
>>                                                       A
>>
>>                 Terminology/Concepts           |      | MPI
>>
>>                Used in this Document                  V
>>
>>                                                |   +-----+
>>
>>                                                    | PNC |
>>
>>                                                |   +-----+
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> We would also add further clarifying text along the lines of:
>>
>>
>>
>> The TS-NBI would be at the same level as the customer service models
>> (LxSM), except that it uses a technology agnostic service model where as
>> LxSM does not.
>>
>>
>>
>> We add hierarchy to the MDSC concept in this figure so that the mapping
>> with LxNM might be easier to see.  But the TSC could also directly interact
>> with multiple domain controllers in which case we have a single MDSC.
>>
>>
>>
>> If nobody objects, or has additional input they would like to provide, we
>> would like to go ahead and make this change to the Framework draft.
>>
>>
>>
>> If necessary, we can discuss this at the meeting on Thursday (14 May).
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Eric
>> --
>> Teas-ns-dt mailing list
>> Teas-ns-dt@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas-ns-dt
>>
>
>
> --
> ___________________________________________
> Luis M. Contreras
> contreras.ietf@gmail.com
> luismiguel.contrerasmurillo@telefonica.com
> Global CTIO unit / Telefonica
> --
> Teas-ns-dt mailing list
> Teas-ns-dt@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas-ns-dt
>