Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet-08

Bo,

Please see inline for responses (prefixed VPB)..

Regards,

-Pavan (on behalf of the authors)

On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 6:39 AM Wubo (lana) <lana.wubo=
40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I have read the draft and have some questions with the text and terms.
>
> 1. This document seems only define SFA (slice-flow aggregation) based
> mapping solution, that is, slice services mapping to SFAs, and SFAs to
> NRP(Network Resource Partition)s.
> If this draft is supposed to be a generic slicing realization document, I
> think, it should allow more options. For example, the slice services could
> be mapped to VPNs, and
> VPNs mapped to underlying resources with method described in
> draft-ietf-teas-te-service-mapping-yang.
>

[VPB] Please refer to section 5.3 (
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet-08#section-5.3
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet-08*section-5.3__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!RKgzM9K5I6Crs9-9OkxWcIvs0atMYM1O1zZWrRa009HkrnmqRqcVdrJg4EU6Aib-$>).
It does note that the usual techniques for steering service traffic onto
paths are applicable -- the example that you cite is certainly allowed. We
can add a reference to draft-ietf-teas-te-service-mapping-yang in this
section and make it explicit.

>
> 2. This draft refers to draft-bestbar-teas-yang-slice-policy, but the
> following definition are not consistent:
> 1) SFA is not defined in draft-bestbar-teas-yang-slice-policy, but is
> seems relevant from the definition. And I can't find NRP Policy selection
> Criteria in the model definition.
> Slice-Flow Aggregate: a collection of packets that match an NRP Policy
> selection criteria and are given the same forwarding treatment ;
>
> 2) draft-bestbar-teas-yang-slice-policy defines Slice Selector, but apart
> from Slice Selector, this draft also defines FAS and FASL. It is
> recommended that the terms be consistent.
> FAS: Flow Aggregate Selector; FASL: Flow Aggregate Selector Label.
>

[VPB] The last two comments above are for the NRP policy data model draft
(Thanks for bringing it up!). We agree that the NRP policy data model draft
needs to be updated to be in sync with the current terminology used in
draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet. This should get done in the next few days.
But please note that the NRP policy data model draft is not the one that is
currently being polled for adoption.

>
> Thanks,
> Bo
> > -----邮件原件-----
> > 发件人: Teas [mailto:teas-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Lou Berger
> > 发送时间: 2022年2月18日 21:28
> > 收件人: TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>
> > 抄送: TEAS WG Chairs <teas-chairs@ietf.org>;
> > draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet@ietf.org
> > 主题: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet-08
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > This email begins a 2-week adoption poll for:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet/
> >
> > Please note that IPR has been disclosed on this document:
> >
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-bestbar-teas-n
> > s-packet
> >
> > Please voice your support or objections to adoption on the list by the
> end of the
> > day (any time zone) March 4.
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Lou (as Co-chair)
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Teas mailing list
> > Teas@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list
> Teas@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>