Re: [Teas] WG Adoption Poll - draft-king-teas-applicability-actn-slicing-10

Tarek Saad <> Wed, 01 September 2021 14:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58C653A13F6; Wed, 1 Sep 2021 07:32:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6WJuXe0RB9Rr; Wed, 1 Sep 2021 07:32:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f32]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF6733A143B; Wed, 1 Sep 2021 07:32:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id z7so1569735qvi.4; Wed, 01 Sep 2021 07:32:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=from:to:cc:subject:thread-topic:thread-index:date:message-id :references:in-reply-to:accept-language:content-language :mime-version; bh=qR6oXGP5ZsBZZ1UXeR+vmuk+y/sWQ245hsvr2WWgSF4=; b=HKxKjPjH5aBRtXg/ipcoz1CzZme/7LTKb7I6bzhkWT1QqJaN2v3bgxSHCvaN3THBVg 0g8nwzzImVbd2MIc4GgioL4pM/sw4AfSVaTEPE+fy3XE2bipM5DDP8JqOLT78gY8g1gX Q1qjtIaaAYQ8W/oJfqSPx/KAegOQq3x0JvG9ACS14TeLkCoZwS6XOM0QdCcpD7lw7Bmu kl790iZbitDUJLIr1jWPshrx+jkZ6LOaEWfFy69aI3eUn80aPB3DxMy6XL2DKuHKBbn3 K6CVJJSJLuyPiC9eXc+0koRvMzJVNJGBhb3qSF8mj8FfAF4QG5O6ryBlPw+NKsQdyI3y e2Fw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:thread-topic:thread-index :date:message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language :content-language:mime-version; bh=qR6oXGP5ZsBZZ1UXeR+vmuk+y/sWQ245hsvr2WWgSF4=; b=Hv2yYLs3IsP/vO9P1QbgyMXsJO5Y1YP4k0H92zOqX/Lg6MpUZhjjj8NeiLnOHlQW1D 5g/mO13Ron/Kp8cRxDP0nWEEMYRSl5kTrzi500ajRINKhficuhV2lOlY3g+pjdRvFRAF uYFotxrqjrHrJ8RaV+DApF1uh6gYh3s1o6C2PU1QBKpt7vsrt9OuQY98X3bb+sdewaDS zI3lSoKnFohJyicz+HcwgjJ1GhXbMvx/QueroDKoQMKvaezYjwBR1TlQ4IxTHMERCa5L DEBxn2tnNHGeor9C2WZPZENqGkFexAsXQoMnzzE303XI0FJD4UtkiOzlt/nxGxfu9EBS WF2Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530b1/LL6GrZ1ekzhQX8ukx8+X/AYh393m8/pppOtiBHpNLIFcwR q9pgf7EmKj05bFdjFmN8mQo=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzlTiCwJuqTMmHfHX9zf2RjI81sOCkh0X2a6rTOIq6IVqOEatZL7XiMkO5ATdglMQQbNhks7Q==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:f68:: with SMTP id iy8mr34897496qvb.51.1630506762783; Wed, 01 Sep 2021 07:32:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([2603:1036:4:9e::5]) by with ESMTPSA id y15sm91666qko.78.2021. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 01 Sep 2021 07:32:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tarek Saad <>
To: Daniele Ceccarelli <>, Vishnu Pavan Beeram <>, TEAS WG <>
CC: TEAS WG Chairs <>
Thread-Topic: [Teas] WG Adoption Poll - draft-king-teas-applicability-actn-slicing-10
Thread-Index: AQHXm0H+Fuu1ifdTsEW3FVM6OQIJJ6uLwCvwgAN5TA8=
X-MS-Exchange-MessageSentRepresentingType: 1
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2021 14:32:40 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-CA
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-SCL: -1
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-RecordReviewCfmType: 0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_DM5PR1901MB2150EE8227FAC3DC1B42B7F2FCCD9DM5PR1901MB2150_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Teas] WG Adoption Poll - draft-king-teas-applicability-actn-slicing-10
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2021 14:33:12 -0000

Hi Daniele,

I do not dispute that ACTN VN can be possibly extended to allow provisioning of IETF slice service. However, today other standalone service models such as L3SM and L2SM exist independent of ACTN or VN models.
In fact, the VN draft < draft-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang>, explicitly mentions that the VN model can co-exist with such service models (see below).
Hence IMO, extending applicability of ACTN to network slicing does/should not negate having a IETF slice service specific data model.

   The VN model defined in this document is applicable in generic sense
   as an independent model in and of itself.  The VN model defined in
   this document can also work together with other customer service
   models such as L3SM [RFC8299<>]9>], L2SM [RFC8466<>] and L1CSM
   [I-D.ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang<>] to provide a complete life-cycle service
   management and operations.


From: Teas <> on behalf of Daniele Ceccarelli <>
Date: Monday, August 30, 2021 at 4:59 AM
To: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <>om>, TEAS WG <>
Cc: TEAS WG Chairs <>
Subject: Re: [Teas] WG Adoption Poll - draft-king-teas-applicability-actn-slicing-10
Hi WG,

while reviewing this draft and the network slice NBI YANG I find a major discrepancy between them.
While draft-king-teas-applicability-actn-slicing-10

  draft-wd-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang-04 says that:

“ACTN is a
   toolset capable of delivering network slice functionality.  This
   document outlines the application of ACTN and associated enabling
   technologies to provide network slicing in a network that utilizes
   IETF technologies such as IP, MPLS, or GMPLS.  It describes how the
   ACTN functional components can be used to support model-driven
   partitioning of resources into variable-sized bandwidth units to
   facilitate network sharing and virtualization.”

On the other side we have a network slicing NBI model completely detached from ACTN that says:

“The difference between the ACTN VN model and the IETF Network Slice

   NBI requirements is that the IETF Network Slice NBI is a technology-

   agnostic interface, whereas the VN model is bound to the IETF TE

   Topologies.  The realization of the IETF Network Slice does not

   necessarily require the slice network to support the TE technology.”


“However, the Network Slice SLO and Network Slice

   Endpoint are not clearly defined and there's no direct equivalent.”

So is ACTN applicable to network slicing or not? And if yes how? I was expecting to see the NBI model based on the ACTN models with some augmentation to cover the e.g. the non TE parts, the LSO and the endpoints…but we have two completely disjoint modules.
I would say that the two drafts are saying exactly the opposite thing, am I missing something?


From: Teas <> On Behalf Of Vishnu Pavan Beeram
Sent: den 27 augusti 2021 14:49
To: TEAS WG <>
Cc: TEAS WG Chairs <>
Subject: [Teas] WG Adoption Poll - draft-king-teas-applicability-actn-slicing-10


This is start of a *two* week poll on making
draft-king-teas-applicability-actn-slicing-10 a TEAS working group document.
Please send email to the list indicating "yes/support" or "no/do not support".
If indicating no, please state your reservations with the document. If
yes, please also feel free to provide comments you'd like to see
addressed once the document is a WG document.

The poll ends September 10th.

Thank you,
Pavan and Lou