Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-wdbsp-teas-nrp-yang-04

[LUIS MIGUEL CONTRERAS MURILLO <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

I support the adoption as well.

From my reading, I have the following comments / clarification questions which I would like to be addressed by the authors:

- At the very end of Introduction, we can find the following statement: “the NRPs model is a network configuration model”. When looking at Figure 4 of the framework document, the NRPs appear as internal abstract representation of network topologies at the NSC. Thus, this means NSC should keep an abstract representation of the topology underneath, and NSC should support a network configuration model for handling the NRP exercising the described YANG model. Is my understanding correct?

- Section 3. The first bullet (NRP instantiation) refers to the network controller as the one handling an NRP. It should be the NSC, according to Figure 4 of the framework document, and to be consistent what the other bullets in the same section.

- Section 3, bullet on NRP modification. It only refers to bandwidth, while the NRP is refer at the beginning as a collection of resources. The model later on also insist on bandwidth. Thus, It seems that the only resource applicable is bandwidth. Should we then narrow down the NRP definition and take bandwidth as resource, or widening up and generalize the statements (and model) in the draft? For instance, section 3.1.1 title is abut resource reservation, but only bandwidth is considered.

- Section 3.1 mentions “NRP capable node”. This is not defined anywhere in the document, I think it is convenient to do so.

- The document assumes a single PHB per NRP (see section 3.1.3 as well). Is this correct? If so, it means that all the slices on top of an NRP will get the same behavior. But a slice could have different kind of flows. Thus, all the flow types on a slice would get the same behavor once mapped to an NRP. Is my understanding correct?

- Same section 3.1. Regarding the statement “The NRP policy modes (b) and (c) require the distributed/centralized resource reservation management”. It would be nice to have some clarification for what distributed/centralized resource reservation management the text is referring to. Furthermore, both of them are required, only one of them?

- Section 3.1.2. Few selectors are described. However many other fields could be used as selector. The more obvious could be those used in the YANG slice model under match-criteria at the time of mapping customer flows to slices (e.g. vlan). I think the selectors should be consistent with that, opening up the door to some other selectors or ways of combining selectors.

- Regarding selectors, when referring to IP addresses. Always destination address is considered, never origin. I presume that for some cases would be much easier select origin instead of destination.

- Section 3.1.3. mention that the PHB is defined by the controller, should it be the NSC instead? NSC is the one handling the NRP.

- At the time of discussing Bandwidth reservation, one case identified is the reservation specified as percentage of link capacity. However such % can be very different depending on the distinct links of an NRP. How can it be consistent?

Thanks

Best regards

Luis


-----Mensaje original-----
De: Teas <[e-mail]> En nombre de Italo Busi
Enviado el: viernes, 9 de febrero de 2024 10:54
Para: Lou Berger <[e-mail]>; TEAS WG <[e-mail]>
CC: TEAS WG Chairs <[e-mail]>
Asunto: Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-wdbsp-teas-nrp-yang-04

I support the adoption of this draft as WG document

I have one comment which may be worthwhile addressing in the -00 version of the WG

The current name and title of the draft and YANG model can be misinterpreted as if this draft is defining a technology-agnostic NRP model. Instead, the discussion on the list has clarified that this draft is defining an IP technology-specific NRP model

I think that clarifying this in the title and name of the draft and YANG model would avoid any confusion:

c/A YANG Data Model for Network Resource Partitions (NRPs)/A YANG Data Model for Network Resource Partitions (NRPs) in IP networks/

c/nrp-yang/ip-nrp-yang/

c/ietf-nrp/ietf-ip-nrp/

I have also another comment that could be addressed in a future update through normal WG process: it would also be worthwhile updating the abstract/introduction to clarify that this model applies on devices and on controllers (as clarified by Pavan in his mail)

My 2 cents

Thanks, Italo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lou Berger <[e-mail]>
> Sent: martedì 23 gennaio 2024 14:48
> To: TEAS WG <[e-mail]>
> Cc: TEAS WG Chairs <[e-mail]>
> Subject: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-wdbsp-teas-nrp-yang-04
>
> Hello,
>
> This email begins a 2-week adoption poll for:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wdbsp-teas-nrp-yang/
>
> No IPR has been disclosed on this document
>
> Please voice your support or objections to adoption on the list by the
> end of the day (any time zone) February 6.
>
> Thank you,
> Lou (as Co-chair)
>

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

________________________________

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 confidential and privileged 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