Re: [Teas] WG adoption - draft-nsdt-teas-transport-slice-definition - Appendix

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Tue, 25 August 2020 19:59 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
X-Original-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDA873A0B5C for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 12:59:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 0DBCG073skDQ for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 12:59:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [193.234.218.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0417D3A0B59 for <teas@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 12:59:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9622766016D; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 22:59:47 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ww9OldpjKYqo; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 22:59:45 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2001:14b8:1829::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 76FEB6600B9; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 22:59:45 +0300 (EEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <CA+YzgTssZ750UXoc0xzCzD63rbbp3uA_4mzasfLMgni1_Z8J+A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 22:59:45 +0300
Cc: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <CF569281-FBA6-4A6F-9888-FA61FA423C1A@piuha.net>
References: <CA+YzgTvnv5nUZ6OYx9GkFUxDHxAFNvYsx5LrFfho3860_MLfZA@mail.gmail.com> <330a76d8-2f05-795f-42a6-01de094b54b4@joelhalpern.com> <BYAPR13MB2437D23542B163D477B583C8D95A0@BYAPR13MB2437.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <93726585-ccdd-3460-e6c6-540f98ec9084@joelhalpern.com> <BYAPR13MB243700523A1B5D597973C1CCD95A0@BYAPR13MB2437.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <2265a594-f48f-3903-d998-3bb764df627a@joelhalpern.com> <b7b110ce14344cadb74b80ea9ccce144@huawei.com> <f07c0de8-6d51-7ffe-7ff5-8fb13212708a@joelhalpern.com> <3f563fbf4a3742a195e61d96844bd042@huawei.com> <MN2PR15MB29903640C9630924BA18B61E8F5B0@MN2PR15MB2990.namprd15.prod.outlook.com> <77124c508ce54822a70afc616c31e5cf@att.com> <CAE4dcxnYo8NCB_ADmd-Qv-5ZwZ5hpM4FtgnF=oLcELTO2i7o=w@mail.gmail.com> <5765E489-B949-424B-8217-8049948AFD08@att.com> <CA+YzgTssZ750UXoc0xzCzD63rbbp3uA_4mzasfLMgni1_Z8J+A@mail.gmail.com>
To: TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/4Mpbe9a2F2V4ZIdB5T9ORUP0nhk>
Subject: Re: [Teas] WG adoption - draft-nsdt-teas-transport-slice-definition - Appendix
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <teas.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas/>
List-Post: <mailto:teas@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 19:59:53 -0000

High-level bit: I would like to see the document adopted. With changes if needed. Let the WG decide. Design teams are there just for preparing proposals. Authority to do stuff is entirely in the WG now.

When it comes to the isolation topic, however, FWIW, I wanted to provide both a context from design team discussions and my personal perspective on this.

Design team discussions: 

We’ve had variants of this discussion on almost all of the calls we’ve had for the last year. One one side there was our shared observation that industry uses the term isolation, and (perhaps less widely shared conclusion) that it is important to be able to relate to this. On the other side, there was our shared agreement that what matters from a requirement perspective is the bandwidth and other requirements, and that there are several techniques that can provide the desired characteristic of not having your neighbour affect the bandwidth the service provider has agreed to give you.

The text that we had was in an appendix precisely because we felt that the top-level SLOs should be the requirement and are sufficient by themselves. The appendix only attempts to say that “there’s multiple ways to achieve this, and by the way, this term in the industry relates to our work in this indirect way”.

I can appreciate that we may have failed in the task of writing that. Delete and move on, no biggie :-)

Personal perspective: 

My impression of customer requirements and how they get represented matches with what Joel has been saying in this thread.

I’m fine removing the appendix. 

If I had my way, I would write the document based entirely on the primary characteristics — such as that we promise you n GB/s. Then I would write a footnote or appendix somewhere that explains that this notion isolation has also been discussed elsewhere, and that it can be represented using the primary characteristics, and hence need not be discussed further in this document. One could perhaps also point out that there are multiple ways to implement the primary characteristics promises, so that those promises can be kept despite what’s happening with your neighbour’s traffic. And leave it at that. But I understand from this thread that people are reluctant to do that, and may even be reluctant to write anything about isolation. I’m fine with that, too.

Jari