Re: [Teas-ns-dt] Slides for the WG meeting

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

Jari,

As per our discussion yesterday at IETF, we will discuss the terminology today at IETF.
I agree with your comment on Transport slice subnet. Instead, my suggestion is the term “Transport Slice”.

Reza


From: Jari Arkko <[e-mail]>
Date: Sunday, November 17, 2019 at 2:31 PM
To: Reza Rokui <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Teas-ns-dt] Slides for the WG meeting

> Slide 5 and 6 “Design Team Scope & Plan”: A good summary of the scope

Thanks!

> As discussed before between us, let’s agreed on terminology and use it consistently. On slide 4 shown below, I am suggesting to use the following terminologies:

     *   Instead of “Transport Network Connections: --> “Transport Slice Subnet” (do not use of Transpot Network slice or Transport Slice). This is consistent by other SDOs
     *   “Transport Slice Subnet” is a set of connections
     *   Please add C3 to the picture and mark it as “Other Slice Subnets” (Any suggestion for a better name?)
     *   C1 and C2 are “Transport Slice Subnets
     *   S1 is a Network Slice (which might contain multiple Transport sub-slices and Other Sub-Slices

Mmm. It could be just me, but I’m not sure we are yet in full agreement on everything in the terminology. Maybe worth discussing in the meeting.  But does “slice subnet” imply some sort of addressing? Is that true of all cases, what about, say, Ethernet networks or even pseudowires, or other things that provide a mere bit pipe? And what about that “set of connections”, how would that work in the case a p2mp connection for instance?

Jari