Re: [Teas-ns-dt] draft-nsdt-teas-transport-slice-definition-02-comments

Hi Erik, et al.,
thank you for all the comments and suggestions to strengthen the document.
I want to touch on the use of the term "availability" (with updates you've
proposed):

o Availability: concerns with how often a service is lost (or degraded to
the point of unacceptable performance) due to a fault, and how quickly the
lost service network becomes available after a fault. The requirements are
specified through mean time between failures (MTBF), and mean time to
repair (MTTR) to acquire availability metrics.

I agree with you that availability is affected by both network failures and
network performance degradation below a certain threshold. Then, if I
follow that definition, the way of measuring or calculating the
availability noted in the second sentence does not appear to be accurate as
it only includes failure and does not consider periods of performance
degradation. Since this draft, as I understand, is intended to provide the
definitions to be used throughout other TS drafts, perhaps leaving in the
definition will be sufficient, while the availability
measurement/calculation method will be outside the scope of the document.
What do you think?

Regards,
Greg

On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 6:41 AM Eric Gray <eric.gray=
40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> Authors/Editors of draft-nsdt-teas-transport-slice-definition-02:
>
>
>
>               Please consider the attached revised and annotated version
> of your -02 version of this draft.
>
>
>
>               This version shows markup for removing or modifying some
> highly contentious or questionable text and sections – including
> annotations as to why this text should be removed.
>
>
>
>               It also includes comments and questions about other text
> that may not be necessary, or should be reworded.
>
>
>
>               One section (section 4.1.1) is shown as removed, but Jari
> had made a couple of other suggestions about that text immediately prior to
> the last meeting.  I do not recall if there was any decision about these
> alternatives and I could not track down the meeting notes from that meeting.
>
>
>
>               A key observation about this draft is that it is supposed to
> be a definitions draft – i.e. – it defines the terminology we are using or
> expect to use in other drafts related to this work..
>
>
>
>               There is some danger in having the ambition to see
> “definition” as something we can stretch to encompass “specification” in
> this draft.
>
>
>
>               It is important also to realize that the parameters and
> objectives of transport slice services listed in this draft are explicitly
> intended to be representative examples, rather than an exhaustive list –
> hence it is not necessary to include any for which there is no consensus to
> include.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Eric
> --
> Teas-ns-dt mailing list
> Teas-ns-dt@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas-ns-dt
>