[Teas-ns-dt] Definitions draft review

["Belotti, Sergio (Nokia - IT/Vimercate)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,
Here my comments to the draft draft-nsdt-teas-transport-slice-definition-01.

Introduction

  *   It is used the term "partitioning" that has a clear and well defined definition in other SDO, e.g. ITU-T in G.800/G.805 (section 5.3.2) , not sure in IETF. So, my suggestion would be or to change term e.g. "separation" could be used, or make a reference of a clear definition (as I reported) .

Section 3


  *   "The types of nodes used in any of these networks may include..."

I was wondering looking at the list of "types of nodes" if Service Functions like firewall or Application servers can be mentioned as nodes.



Section 4



  *   4.1
     *   Transport slice definition : already provided pull request https://github.com/teas-wg/teas-ns-dt/pulls
  *   4.2
     *   "The managing entity realizing a transport slice is referred to as realizing network operator in this document". The sentence seems to me a bit unclear.
     *   "A transport slice is built with a combination of specific technologies on the basis of request from a higher operations system". Maybe it is possible to simplify sentence "A transport slice is built on the basis of request from a higher operations system." . The fact that transport slice can be realized by different technology has been already said in the text , no need for repetition.
  *   4.2.2
     *   "The TSC carries the mapping to specific technologies for its realization.". I think TSC is "providing" or "creating" the mapping to technology , since at NBI it will receive technology-agnostic information by user/orchestrator, but based on these requirements can choose the correct mapping towards right technology.

BTW this section is absolutely necessary but probably more feasible for a framework document than for a definition draft.

  *   5.1
     *   SLA discussion:   I think wording is a bit unclear. I suppose the concept is that IETF scope is to define TS in line with specific parameters representing the SLO. Is it correct my understanding? If yes my suggestion would be to simplify a bit the wording.
     *   Isolation discussion: this part seems to me a bit in contrast with other IETF draft already mentioned here e.g. draft-ietf-teas-enhanced-vpn, in which isolation is characterized as one of the basic requirement for a transport slice. Here the message is not so clear maybe it is just a problem of wording, but not so sure to have got the final message of this text.



Thanks

Sergio

Sergio Belotti
Senior System Engineer and Standardization Architect
IP/Optical Networks, Optics BU
Nokia
M: [phone]
Via Energy Park, 20871 Vimercate (MB) , Italy
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>