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

[LUIS MIGUEL CONTRERAS MURILLO <[e-mail]>]

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

De: Teas-ns-dt <[e-mail]> En nombre de Eric Gray
Enviado el: martes, 12 de mayo de 2020 16:03
Para: [e-mail]
Asunto: [Teas-ns-dt] Figure in the ACTN Applicability section
Importancia: Alta


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

________________________________

Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario, puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso exclusivo de la persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la lectura, utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin autorización puede estar prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción.

The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error and then delete it.

Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinatário, pode conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e é para uso exclusivo da pessoa ou entidade de destino. Se não é vossa senhoria o destinatário indicado, fica notificado de que a leitura, utilização, divulgação e/ou cópia sem autorização pode estar proibida em virtude da legislação vigente. Se recebeu esta mensagem por erro, rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique imediatamente por esta mesma via e proceda a sua destruição