Re: [Teas] Comments to draft-liu-teas-transport-network-slice-yang-01

[Xufeng Liu <[e-mail]>]

Xueyan,

Thanks for the review and comments. We have posted an updated document
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-liu-teas-transport-network-slice-yang-02,
addressing some of your comments.

Some replies are in-line below.
Thanks,
- Xufeng

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 4:18 AM <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Xufeng and Co-authors,
>
>
> Thank you for providing the draft-liu-teas-transport-network-slice-yang.
> The YANG data module based on the augment of RFC8345 is clearly defined
> from the perspective of network-topology (including network, nodes and
> links) and well reflected the characteristics of IETF network slice.
>
>
> From the Module Tree Structure specified at clause 4, the delay-tolerance
> is added as a leaf node and set as an Optional parameter for IETF network
> slice, refering to "GSMA-NS-Template: Generic Network Slice
> Template, Version 1.0.". I have some commens here:
>
> 1. I think the parameter set is to meet the service flexible requirements
> of operators and I agree to use the parameter when traffic type has no
> critical requirements on business performance, especially for vertical
> services. Considering this parameter corresponding service type is not
> generic and specific connectivity SLO requirements need to be satisfied for
> an IETF network slice,  I more suggest to add performace parameters, such
> as: bandwidth, latency, jitter, packet loss rate, etc. Whant do you
> think?
>
[Xufeng]:  This model is technology-agnostic, and the parameter set is the
area that we need to complete. We have put a TODO note in Sec 4. However,
the performance parameters that you listed above have already been covered
in other models, such as RFC8795 and
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-yang-l3-te-topo. Therefore, it
is expected that other models would be used together with this model to
achieve certain features and capabilities if such models are available and
can be used together.

2. One minor problem is that GSMA NG.116 has been released version 3.0, I
> propose to use the current version as a reference.
>
[Xufeng]: Thanks for the comment. We have updated the draft to reference
the newer version of GSMA NG.116.

>
> Appreciate it for your response.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Xueyan
>
>
>
>
>