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

[Eric Gray <[e-mail]>]

Reza,

I think I have repeatedly made the point that this aspect of the discussion is a pointless distraction.

If we describe what a slice consumer can expect from the slice provided in terms of SLO parameters, and we include how the slice consumer connects to the slice provided, we do not need to know anything about how or why the slice consumer might use the slice provided.

In fact, we should not want to know, because anything we need to know about how the slice consumer uses the slice provided – that is not reflected in SLO parameters – becomes a complicating factor.

So, as much as it might be useful to provide a “big-picture” diagram for some number of use cases, we have those now, and we should not spend much time in describing aspects of use cases that have zero impact on the work we are doing.

--
Eric


From: Teas-ns-dt <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 10:42 AM
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc: Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Teas-ns-dt] Brief meeting notes

Adrian,

The definition of the “E2E network slice” is better understood based on use-case. I have added two use-cases below.
In summary, the “endpoint” of a Connection might be any combination of various  VNF, PNF or applications.
A couple of notes related to these use-cases:

  *   IETF definition work is beyond any use-case. We are not stuck on 3GPP terms
  *   The “E2E network” slice and Connections are not the same. We shall use different terms for them to make sure they are distinct
  *   The scope of IETF work is not “E2E network slice” as shown below. Depends on the use case the “E2E network slice” might be different from “Connections”.
  *   The IETF scope is related to “Connections” and question is which term to use for them.

Cheers,
Reza

[cid:image003.png@01D69329.4FDFAF50]

[cid:image005.png@01D69329.4FDFAF50]


From: Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Reply-To: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Friday, September 25, 2020 at 9:27 AM
To: Reza Rokui <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: RE: [Teas-ns-dt] Brief meeting notes

Reza,

Where can I go for a definition of the term “E2E network slice” so that I can get a better understanding of the concept and work out how the terms “connection” and “network slice” fit in?

A lot will depend (I suppose) on how an “end” is defined, and what context is being applied.

Thanks,
Adrian

From: Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: 25 September 2020 13:29
To: John E Drake <jdrake=[e-mail]<mailto:jdrake=[e-mail]>>; Jari Arkko <jari.arkko=[e-mail]<mailto:jari.arkko=[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Lou Berger <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; 'BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A' <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vbeeram=[e-mail]<mailto:vbeeram=[e-mail]>>; Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
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 <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of John E Drake <jdrake=[e-mail]<mailto:jdrake=[e-mail]>>
Date: Thursday, September 24, 2020 at 3:41 PM
To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko=[e-mail]<mailto:jari.arkko=[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Lou Berger <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "'BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A'" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vbeeram=[e-mail]<mailto:vbeeram=[e-mail]>>
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 <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Jari Arkko
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2020 12:34 PM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
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