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

["Luis M. Contreras" <[e-mail]>]

(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=
[e-mail]>) 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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas-ns-dt
>


-- 
___________________________________________
Luis M. Contreras
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Global CTIO unit / Telefonica