[Teas] What SLOs and SLEs should be in the Slicing Service Model?

Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Wed, 23 March 2022 13:47 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
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 1CC7D3A13E7 for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Mar 2022 06:47:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.905
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.905 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] 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 NMvTCbzLlwZq for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Mar 2022 06:46:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta6.iomartmail.com (mta6.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.156]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BAAA23A13EC for <teas@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Mar 2022 06:46:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vs3.iomartmail.com (vs3.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.124]) by mta6.iomartmail.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 22NDktWl029366 for <teas@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Mar 2022 13:46:55 GMT
Received: from vs3.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2354A4604B for <teas@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Mar 2022 13:46:55 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from vs3.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17C764604A for <teas@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Mar 2022 13:46:55 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.249]) by vs3.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS for <teas@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Mar 2022 13:46:55 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([85.255.232.179]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 22NDkrfP029694 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for <teas@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Mar 2022 13:46:54 GMT
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: 'TEAS WG' <teas@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2022 13:46:54 -0000
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <001001d83ebc$759fa480$60deed80$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: Adg+ux+qPW46+KPXStClMmX63fu0ig==
Content-Language: en-gb
X-Originating-IP: 85.255.232.179
X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.1.0.2090-8.6.0.1018-26788.007
X-TM-AS-Result: No-1.055-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No-1.055-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.1.0.2090-8.6.1018-26788.007
X-TMASE-Result: 10-1.054700-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: pTq0mT1IyRYOwAmmWH5kBMp9Bgr5ONKhPPO3hD4bcFaMaFQ8vJ/ny+vq WwNc5mGjLx62MRsVbpD5thTiZ/cV6YIT1E8ZAOo/36lQXQeyPFFzGpNq69FY/q0GJL2EV5pMWOC IT650/Ok56UleuofCzXyMDXosezcEAP3vIlpZplOeAiCmPx4NwLTrdaH1ZWqCii7lXaIcF/Ww7M 6dyuYKg46HM5rqDwqt2iGnf+H9N+fU7GOMUEkmkmyqbrdZhI1J2z2OJYAajU20i/snAjIqAu90J QgW5qyr
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/9io9pN2dlRh3Wg7qmAv22m9eILc>
Subject: [Teas] What SLOs and SLEs should be in the Slicing Service Model?
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: Wed, 23 Mar 2022 13:47:03 -0000

Hi,

Sorry for my audio being a mess in TEAS today.

I believe I heard the discussion between Kireeti and Reza correctly, and
there was some follow-up in the chat.

I agree that "Protection" is a realisation feature and so it qualifies as an
SLE, if at all.
But "Reliability" is clearly an SLO. Usually expressed as maximum down-time
per unit of time, or maximum lost traffic.

There was one thing that I *think* I heard. This was Reza saying that the
service YANG model was only including the SLOs and SLEs noted in the
framework. Maybe I misheard "only" because I think that might be a mistake.
The YANG model should certainly be interested in what the framework says,
but it is not a requirement that all SLOs and SLEs in the framework be in
the model if the authors find that there is no interest in implementing
them, and there should certainly be no limitation about including additional
SLOs or SLEs in the YANG model. Indeed, the SLOs and SLEs listed in the
framework are presented as examples.

Cheers,
Adrian