IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Teas-ns-dt] TEAS-NS-DT Framework Draft Status IETF 108.pptx

"Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com> Thu, 23 July 2020 14:59 UTC

Return-Path: <jie.dong@huawei.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 B8D213A084C for <teas-ns-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 07:59:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
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 V5oBntj5thrM for <teas-ns-dt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 07:59:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (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 149D73A0849 for <teas-ns-dt@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 07:59:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml717-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 3F1309C78B2800D0EEDC for <teas-ns-dt@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 15:59:07 +0100 (IST)
Received: from dggeme751-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.97) by lhreml717-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.68) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 15:58:39 +0100
Received: from dggeme754-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.100) by dggeme751-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.97) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1913.5; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 22:58:37 +0800
Received: from dggeme754-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.6.80.77]) by dggeme754-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.6.80.77]) with mapi id 15.01.1913.007; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 22:58:37 +0800
From: "Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com>
To: Eric Gray <eric.gray=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "teas-ns-dt@ietf.org" <teas-ns-dt@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: TEAS-NS-DT Framework Draft Status IETF 108.pptx
Thread-Index: AdZg+0+hAD7NQjFFTdCZzxueBPThgQAAfNWg
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 14:58:37 +0000
Message-ID: <a4451b22ccd84141814c33e03f3fec5d@huawei.com>
References: <DM6PR15MB3097EC3A839E9F5A65D0B93A97760@DM6PR15MB3097.namprd15.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR15MB3097EC3A839E9F5A65D0B93A97760@DM6PR15MB3097.namprd15.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.45.218.228]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_a4451b22ccd84141814c33e03f3fec5dhuaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas-ns-dt/kp9J-E-4UGiU_ujB78iNsmj_RM4>
Subject: Re: [Teas-ns-dt] TEAS-NS-DT Framework Draft Status IETF 108.pptx
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: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 14:59:12 -0000

Hi Eric,

Thanks for preparing the slides for the presentation.

At a glance here are some quick comments and suggestions about page 4:


1.      The word "concrete" in "a new concrete interface" may note correctly reflect that the NBI interface actually should be abstracted.


2.      Deal with (possibly) vestigial and confusing text related to isolation (clarify/remove)  -- >  My memory is that the DT discussed and agreed that isolation needs to be further discussed in framework document, thus "remove" seems not quite align with our discussion.


3.      Objections to repeated references to VPN+ draft  -- I just noted this comment from Kiran's review, while this may not be interpreted as an objection, instead it could be "suggestions to have one place to summarize the reference and relationship to VPN+ draft"


Hope this helps.

Best regards,
Jie

From: Teas-ns-dt [mailto:teas-ns-dt-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Eric Gray
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2020 10:13 PM
To: teas-ns-dt@ietf.org
Subject: [Teas-ns-dt] TEAS-NS-DT Framework Draft Status IETF 108.pptx

Currently proposed presentation for next week.  Please send comments to this list...

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email