Re: [Teas-ns-dt] Comment to definitions draft in today's call -- logical vs abstract vs virtual

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

Hi Adrian,
refer to RFC 7926 was in fact my first comment :)

Thanks
Sergio

From: Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2020 6:53 PM
To: Belotti, Sergio (Nokia - IT/Vimercate) <[e-mail]>om>; 'LUIS MIGUEL CONTRERAS MURILLO' <[e-mail]>om>; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [Teas-ns-dt] Comment to definitions draft in today's call -- logical vs abstract vs virtual

PMFBI

It is interesting watching the debate on logical, abstract, virtual (and no doubt, aggregate) constructs.

I hope everyone has been reading the work of the TEAS working group carefully so that we don't come up with terminology or definitions that is at odds with previous usages.

It is not that we have to agree with previous terms or definitions, but if we want new definitions it would be wise to use new terms so that we avoid confusion.

You may find RFC 7926 helpful. Especially sections 1.1 and 4.2

Enjoy,
Adrian

From: Teas-ns-dt <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Belotti, Sergio (Nokia - IT/Vimercate)
Sent: 05 March 2020 17:35
To: LUIS MIGUEL CONTRERAS MURILLO <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Teas-ns-dt] Comment to definitions draft in today's call -- logical vs abstract vs virtual

I think that logical (or even abstract) is more comprehensive since virtual reminds to some kind of virtualization of the underlying resources, but a slice could naturally involve (dedicated) physical resources. So that is why I'm inclined to use logical as a more generic term.

Virtualization has nothing to do with "select" only physical resources but instead is related to select underlying resources (physical or abstract) in the prospective to a particular customer, application or service.
If this was your problem with virtual , it is not a problem.

Regards
SErgio

From: Teas-ns-dt <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of LUIS MIGUEL CONTRERAS MURILLO
Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2020 6:12 PM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: [Teas-ns-dt] Comment to definitions draft in today's call -- logical vs abstract vs virtual

Hi all,

Apologies, I experienced problems in the call today, not being able for me to speak up (even I lost part of the discussions, apologies again).

I wrote my preference in the chat, I think you couldn't echoed.

So respect to the discussion of preference for logical  vs abstract vs virtual, I think that logical (or even abstract) is more comprehensive since virtual reminds to some kind of virtualization of the underlying resources, but a slice could naturally involve (dedicated) physical resources. So that is why I'm inclined to use logical as a more generic term.

Note that in the operators' vocabulary today "virtual" has further connotations (exceeding the transport part), so can be an overloaded term in some end-to-end scenarios.

Best regards

Luis


__________________________________
Luis M. Contreras

Technology and Planning
Transport, IP and Interconnection Networks
Telefónica I+D / Global CTIO unit / Telefónica

Distrito Telefónica, Edificio Sur 3, Planta 3
28050 Madrid
España / Spain

Skype (Lync): [phone]
Mobile: [phone]
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>



________________________________

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