Re: [Teas-ns-dt] Brief meeting notes

Eric Gray <eric.gray@ericsson.com> Fri, 25 September 2020 14:43 UTC

Return-Path: <eric.gray@ericsson.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 934A33A0C81 for <teas-ns-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 07:43:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.794
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.794 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-1.695, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-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 (1024-bit key) header.d=ericsson.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 dfqBsAVwDAyb for <teas-ns-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 07:43:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NAM04-BN8-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn8nam08on2069.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.100.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 25EF73A0AE7 for <teas-ns-dt@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 07:43:31 -0700 (PDT)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=LbHLjnv/FSyvbZ5yzaNuOIFQUV6wP+49QRHYIniCXT8gjs00WE/byz3Tt2pRjIUCt6ymTCuebK9wNMvySUou9GGQsRIw8nZt4CWK20QgZXSwPezg8xOLRBdrlVK89xTuJalPL4+XXMyCL6eLmUyw/Pp2yQCBGqkKs6/tqiuKmswQGE7Pt8FAzcAsxDyFLQCHUqkAJ0iTJk3sGFCRVLpO6G87QDygWOf/kCKWKX2ptCqMC8zKroaNZeD6ZmAnFnB46LMGKjAyVapXwkt88dO5+3WXDSWte2LM13VXJdCVZRDguecGZB2wT9gUkH8gvHuamGdtEx4w1j4UOvbhj46lCQ==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=wJ5QnWk+Fcu0YFJYGD0/vUSaU9k/2OHJhGEawCQxDno=; b=DL4mniIXdmm5CS4bGau9I4eqsMQi3MIOfJwLQk7fTujTC6qqC4WrYao+3HFTLttykk4gVOp7XZwbXvvRCz3wyW26PdL7vS8EGJGXOBvJUAUAWMW7jmRooAE7LbGRlxUiScSes+31/3yOZmLPzG2TNt2KxQhtFJ2t0rv2OByEC1bXgRCq3c+RJdafD+2n0Wx+wIC5ohUDH2lpxCs/8mRoV46tTh9Ea4ajGXUB2fKAA/ZKHXqoSWu4h4/P4VBCpnvX8oRjykbzrJSHNvbr5eWg6L33/FkJQiwVjJ/korURT6UQQCsLg5sFQoGzLuaZVC0cyImHTV2iMJFlnmm8IU1isA==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ericsson.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=ericsson.com; dkim=pass header.d=ericsson.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ericsson.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=wJ5QnWk+Fcu0YFJYGD0/vUSaU9k/2OHJhGEawCQxDno=; b=pTbwWWbte+K0kxjqc1qZvLoHOzSIrtFd7EiwKv4QO0ZRHmn2l8LFGNM4V1dcqt5tx2DFAy0R/6s5pApjfN1HQE8Cmy7JJYD/TEHUMBPfbcx3t6ROXTxXEfGRf9suHYhawTA8GzL61NAPFhiFrVbse7AYbA/j682V0lMRMesB+os=
Received: from MN2PR15MB3103.namprd15.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:208:f9::10) by MN2PR15MB2557.namprd15.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:208:123::19) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3412.22; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 14:43:25 +0000
Received: from MN2PR15MB3103.namprd15.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::e59a:ce0a:60d:9257]) by MN2PR15MB3103.namprd15.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::e59a:ce0a:60d:9257%7]) with mapi id 15.20.3412.024; Fri, 25 Sep 2020 14:43:25 +0000
From: Eric Gray <eric.gray@ericsson.com>
To: "Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <reza.rokui@nokia.com>, John E Drake <jdrake=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "teas-ns-dt@ietf.org" <teas-ns-dt@ietf.org>
CC: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vbeeram=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, "'BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A'" <db3546@att.com>
Thread-Topic: [Teas-ns-dt] Brief meeting notes
Thread-Index: AQHWkzdpM3MMTBdIjU+xa+AJVXEKqKl5aW3g
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 14:43:24 +0000
Message-ID: <MN2PR15MB3103092A6C088EC84A12AA4497360@MN2PR15MB3103.namprd15.prod.outlook.com>
References: <1A1D96DA-199E-43CC-ADEC-B86D69E7F7CC@nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <1A1D96DA-199E-43CC-ADEC-B86D69E7F7CC@nokia.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
msip_labels: MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_Enabled=true; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_SetDate=2020-09-24T19:41:35Z; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_Method=Standard; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_Name=0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_SiteId=bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_ActionId=31e408c3-4ff2-4e59-826f-96526eb207f0; MSIP_Label_0633b888-ae0d-4341-a75f-06e04137d755_ContentBits=2
authentication-results: nokia.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;nokia.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=ericsson.com;
x-originating-ip: [73.248.143.71]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: f39ba6db-5be1-4873-15e9-08d861615bc1
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MN2PR15MB2557:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MN2PR15MB2557C07039C105BD0CA8464697360@MN2PR15MB2557.namprd15.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: YtSSMY48AxDOi+T92xVwbzyYJa3q/oAkBf5FZiLTX9ivd6zfeEq4iM0o5TtLuRwq7Sx+ZUK/hEfjePCK9aaW4wAhhKUAEapufJgu/K/ZkoXH6rXIt8cWyVRuyIN1OiRDJkT01QB0FUpvCau/qed583acwX283qtGDhvFjLHrQlq/UIsVyu9252SdbdnI+ViA4jYfeiTJxXX2M1VHI/TOHm+Guc+4nH7icfGB22o88a4/hgxXog0GytZzC0BPWejb1lbPhVwgKgU4cUQ7ddnep+GJwvqjblFntP3f/alo/EW7i55BqwnCK3Ls3/5hcMbX6ZTj0KzVpb5LV/JwQ+FZ3yIv6By7Dl/fQTCY8Izp5icvFEgke/l7KJDLSrXQrR4d
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:MN2PR15MB3103.namprd15.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(4636009)(396003)(136003)(376002)(39860400002)(366004)(346002)(52536014)(66476007)(186003)(5660300002)(64756008)(6506007)(9686003)(86362001)(26005)(53546011)(44832011)(66446008)(33656002)(2906002)(55016002)(4326008)(8676002)(66556008)(76116006)(110136005)(478600001)(66946007)(54906003)(71200400001)(8936002)(296002)(316002)(83380400001)(7696005); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: 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
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_MN2PR15MB3103092A6C088EC84A12AA4497360MN2PR15MB3103namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: ericsson.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: MN2PR15MB3103.namprd15.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: f39ba6db-5be1-4873-15e9-08d861615bc1
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 25 Sep 2020 14:43:24.9929 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 92e84ceb-fbfd-47ab-be52-080c6b87953f
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: vaSkmOoxDY/PlnKo8FnWnCMbtZbv6DfS+vGbXv9jeliX3VkjS8TPnSh27+4HZV5S7LaQnQ6XkhMMM/qpBhZlow==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MN2PR15MB2557
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas-ns-dt/2HI5jg2mun8WXyFEIFCjcj2tX74>
Subject: Re: [Teas-ns-dt] Brief meeting notes
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: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 14:43:35 -0000

Reza,

              I think we get your point.  But there is both room, and evidence, to support disagreement at a basic level.

              One of the most complex aspects of layering in a network is that there needs to be as complete a decoupling between any layer and what is above and below it as is technically possible.

              It is certainly reasonable to layer a network slice over another – possibly quite distinct – network slice.  And in fact, my reading of various technical documents on this topic is that there is at least some expectation that this is exactly what will happen.

              As an example, a mobile operator may need to request what they think of as a “Transport Network Slice” from what they think of as a “Transport Network.”  It is fundamentally ridiculous to assert that the technology used to provide the requested service (because it would be requested using service parameters) needs to be built using any specific technology, or exclusive of any specific technology.

              You’ve admitted at several points during the NS-DT discussions that it is always possible to imagine such a slice being provided hierarchically over zero or more additional network slices.  Why would you suggest that each level in the potential hierarchy needs to be described using a different name.

              In fact, in my discussions with 3GPP experts, it is pretty clear that they could not care less what a “Transport Network Slice” provider calls what they are providing – as long as it meets the service level objectives requested and assured.

--
Eric

From: Teas-ns-dt <teas-ns-dt-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 8:29 AM
To: John E Drake <jdrake=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>; Jari Arkko <jari.arkko=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>; teas-ns-dt@ietf.org
Cc: adrian@olddog.co.uk; Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <reza.rokui@nokia.com>; Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>; Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vbeeram=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>; 'BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A' <db3546@att.com>
Subject: Re: [Teas-ns-dt] Brief meeting notes

John,

                >>>> Reza said that we couldn’t use the term ‘network slice’ because 3GPP uses the term ‘E2E network slice’.

This is not correct and this is not what has been said. It has nothing to do with 3GPP.
Whatever I mentioned was that an ‘E2E Network Slice” Is a concept between multiple users and for an operator to create it, it need to create one or more artifacts for various “Connections”.
Calling these Connections “Network Slice” is not accurate as they are part of the “E2E Network Slice”

Reza


From: Teas-ns-dt <teas-ns-dt-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:teas-ns-dt-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of John E Drake <jdrake=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:jdrake=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>>
Date: Thursday, September 24, 2020 at 3:41 PM
To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:jari.arkko=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>>, "teas-ns-dt@ietf.org<mailto:teas-ns-dt@ietf.org>" <teas-ns-dt@ietf.org<mailto:teas-ns-dt@ietf.org>>
Cc: "adrian@olddog.co.uk<mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk>" <adrian@olddog.co.uk<mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk>>, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net<mailto:lberger@labn.net>>, "'BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A'" <db3546@att.com<mailto:db3546@att.com>>, Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vbeeram=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:vbeeram=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [Teas-ns-dt] Brief meeting notes

Hi,

I just wanted to comment on some of the statements that were made during the conference call today.  I think it’s important that we have a written record rather than trying to respond during the conference call.


  1.  Reza said that we couldn’t use the term ‘network slice’ because 3GPP uses the term ‘E2E network slice’.  Obviously, ‘network slice’ is a different term than ‘E2E network slice’ so this is nonsense.  Further, the definition of the term ‘E2E network slice’ would appear to be the concatenation of two or more ‘network slices’.
  2.  Kiran said that the network slicing was introducing an entirely new concept to the IETF.  The last time I checked, there were roughly 20-30 drafts or RFCs on the topic of network slicing, all of which pre-date anything the NSDT has published and all of which use the term ‘network slicing’
  3.  Kiran said that ‘transport network’ was a common term in the IETF.  This is incorrect.  ‘Transport Network’ is an ITU term and the only time it is used in the IETF is in support of the ITU’s use of MPLS.  This is MPLS-TP (transport profile).
  4.  Kiran said that term ‘IETF network slice’ is not generic.  Why is it important that the term we use be generic and why is this term not generic?
  5.  Kiran said that the NBI was not a service definition.  I think this is nonsense – otherwise, why do we have ‘service level objectives’?

Further, any discussion of isolation should be in terms of the variation of an SLO parameter’s value, since this is the only thing a customer can measure as the instantiation of its ‘service’.  E.g., absolute isolation would mean that a given SLO parameter’s value is invariant.

Yours Irrespectively,

John



Juniper Business Use Only
From: Teas-ns-dt <teas-ns-dt-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:teas-ns-dt-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Jari Arkko
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2020 12:34 PM
To: teas-ns-dt@ietf.org<mailto:teas-ns-dt@ietf.org>
Subject: [Teas-ns-dt] Brief meeting notes

[External Email. Be cautious of content]

Situation:
- Documents not adopted as is

Process:
- we need to revise based on feedback and ask again
- wait on framework until definitions agreed
- interim on Oct 19

Main changes:
1/ need to use a different term
- Perhaps more about the name itself than its definition – but also have to worry about the latter. Maybe easier to discuss once the name is not objectionable?
- We all recognize the feedback, and agree not to use transport network slice term
- IETF network slice one contender, some resistance
2/ isolation
- Need acceptable content, not just a placeholder
- Need to understand which approach to use, though (Jari recommended explaining how the term relates to this work, perhaps some breakdown of the term as well)

Next steps:
- For each issue/change, a small team to look at it, provide some options, and analysis of the implications and tradeoffs in those options
- Post early to main TEAS WG list, keep discussion ongoing
- Jari can arrange a weekly call starting next week (again, posted to main list) for those who want to discuss in real-time. But useful only after the above two steps are done first.
- Responsible people: on the name issue, the author team; on isolation Luis, Jie, and Jeff will work on it
- Everyone else to stay active on list + comment and make counter proposals and additional analysis