IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 09 July 2020 14:53 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 837B23A0C7C for <teas-ns-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 07:53:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 tt_NmPKwLb1N for <teas-ns-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 07:53:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd2c.google.com (mail-io1-xd2c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2c]) (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 B1F4B3A0C6F for <teas-ns-dt@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 07:53:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd2c.google.com with SMTP id v8so2628282iox.2 for <teas-ns-dt@ietf.org>; Thu, 09 Jul 2020 07:53:56 -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=ieUa1MfBU5OxN1gHxYtErpwuZwH7BehphCGvxInRAJY=; b=kFYY9GBReR+Lax7dusRlLoNuli0Wgi8aXPaMMk4tu2f4cPVGR35iz5Plw9JGVwMrd8 mHwoLFRA70B2OQLhAbi/7wMdj1GwED7ksUyp23wkLGjzUDpvwEfsC8Y/B4R+B5pFRLYB gS9zUJ7Whr1/AuTrXhqw52I2AMKtcxg0+BYk1ziu+ypK3ahqvFQXpT8egRkEYN7MfHua AEz+Qc0Nu4E2CtbUcTDrpM5Yb5mTC5gLWaoa0O/PIfnPX4skEt6Y0R0H8nU7i7MtrVf5 O7pvTN9StZC2sYntsQMPYvT6fQoplW03bZblByBeyxGwh+wtHg5ZHw/u3yVzvu4WooeY vq2A==
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=ieUa1MfBU5OxN1gHxYtErpwuZwH7BehphCGvxInRAJY=; b=uWkZsnuak9NWnDHzWSuYAWJ8z+EcGnT/pjxm+ZeG1KZap+aOGMu3zj7ZICeDPKU9WP UQeMJ9eyeWW5HJHO7VvWOpOP7NI/ulzoX93s2WJSvfcMsnXgEywXlt0GZkfyLC25fbj0 WbJo7wmdktCp3hnaxH/s967iOT+zvD3hVaspNtOiiVxadwHnpA2mVA/Y3g6pzleavJm9 jQhtxAKeSQHrZOVcqgwta+OkXhWB/K6ZXtLQo6MVBRxdUNscT9INWsffBVZTc0artC1Z 6fTHsyODrQ3nY2oyPFGzAweotR3S1lxRV7qyhPkDLAmQk9AyG5xGYkNp1J6qmWqdSQXK YHYA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5319HHxIcGLCe2BRV+YZxSG6ZEBWHTxQOmG7DgAPT7emtCmOj0N5 IEnZxYSlBItV8wheb5JWbhcRkWjn0ZU0x+iBYK6LnQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyRKwLQyrJc8a4IReI1+lwq5SJ+K6uypoghVP+dD0O5zuKyebwDpPTUCAOZGf2YTGQA4GLGduTaFEfTPMw+gwk=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:e617:: with SMTP id g23mr43352381ioh.103.1594306435910; Thu, 09 Jul 2020 07:53:55 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <C2F85E60-DBA6-429D-9EEE-450F29C7B5B0@nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <C2F85E60-DBA6-429D-9EEE-450F29C7B5B0@nokia.com>
From: Xufeng Liu <xufeng.liu.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2020 10:53:45 -0400
Message-ID: <CAEz6PPRLQ3EjR-1zr=zE1o_QPypMZhP+MSTHhvexEsaq5t_AHA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <reza.rokui@nokia.com>
Cc: Eric Gray <eric.gray=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, teas-ns-dt <teas-ns-dt@ietf.org>, "teas-wg/teas-ns-dt" <teas-ns-dt@noreply.github.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c6a40c05aa03642a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas-ns-dt/CRRjNvo70ChqDZrOZLp5f2samYE>
Subject: Re: [Teas-ns-dt] Suggestion for "fixing" the tables shared between our DT drafts.
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, 09 Jul 2020 14:53:59 -0000

+1. Agree.

On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 7:58 AM Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <
reza.rokui@nokia.com> wrote:

> 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 <teas-ns-dt-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Eric Gray
> <eric.gray=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
> *Date: *Wednesday, July 8, 2020 at 12:00 PM
> *To: *teas-ns-dt <teas-ns-dt@ietf.org>rg>, teas-wg/teas-ns-dt <
> teas-ns-dt@noreply.github.com>
> *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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Teas-ns-dt mailing list
> Teas-ns-dt@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas-ns-dt
>

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email