Re: [Teas-ns-dt] Comments to the ACTN reference in the framework document during today's call

[Eric Gray <[e-mail]>]

Dhruv,

	As discussed briefly in the last meeting, there is some potential for confusion by including you ACTN "mapping" text in the "mapping" section.

	Your text was really about showing the alignment or logical conversion between the terminology and concepts we are using in the teas-ns-dt work and that used in ACTN.

	I agree that this is critical information from a framework (or background) perspective so I moved it into its own section.

	The intention of the mapping section in Jari's original framework outline was (or has now become) intended to describe the "mapping" that the controller needs to do from requests it receives from a higher-level system or controller, to the underlying network, and vice-versa.

	In this document, some discussion of this "mapping" - complete with examples - needs to be included to clarify the role of the transport slice controller, along with the need for a northbound interface.

--
Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: Teas-ns-dt <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
Sent: Friday, March 6, 2020 1:59 AM
To: LUIS MIGUEL CONTRERAS MURILLO <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Teas-ns-dt] Comments to the ACTN reference in the framework document during today's call

Hi Luis,

On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 10:54 PM LUIS MIGUEL CONTRERAS MURILLO <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Because of the same reason as before, I couldn’t verbally comment on this, so in case you didn’t echoed my comment I share by mail.
>
>
>
> My question here is: should not the mapping to ACTN be considered as a potential solution and in consequence go to a solutions draft? I think framework document should be rather generic, and the explicit mapping to ACTN (at least, as it is now) can create confusion.
>

I think it is critical that some context setting is required with existing published work in TEAS WG. This is different from the "mapping and realization" piece of the transport network slicing (which could be out of scope as you have indicated).

Not including this section, creates its own confusion with the very first questions being - how does this work with existing TEAS standards.

>
>
> I mention this because another possible view of looking to that could be to consider CNC as the higher level system, not necessarily at the same level as the TSC, sicne TSC and Network controller could be the same piece, thus mapping to the MDSC.  So, in my view, such mapping is not straightforward.
>

Another way to look at it is in terms of interfaces. TSC speaks TSC SBI in southbound; CNC speaks CMI in its southbound. So the current mapping fits nicely! And that is why TSC NBI is needed (which did not exist in ACTN).

To me a higher-level-system (beyond transport networks) acting as CNC is a case of a collapsed controllers, which is quite usual as these functions can be combined and split as per RFC 8453.

Thanks!
Dhruv

>
>
> 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]
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> 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
> --
> Teas-ns-dt mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas-ns-dt

--
Teas-ns-dt mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas-ns-dt