Re: [Teas] WG Adoption Poll - draft-wd-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang-04
Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 17 September 2021 15:38 UTC
Return-Path: <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
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 8053E3A1F8A for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 08:38:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.087
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.087 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, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 z7Ma8LKVyHeR for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 08:38:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd2e.google.com (mail-io1-xd2e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D89173A1F89 for <teas@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 08:38:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd2e.google.com with SMTP id a22so12704218iok.12 for <teas@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 08:38:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=XLqjC9KStQTHBAnT4yb2yLeccedid1GCWQ8GiwavBd4=; b=fwvDcPRa9lmLw9gJQnXosh94ymRoftobfr7rUn0agQkX1PGwF7GGNfAunK//pGhYkV lpw59KAu39K6N2Fh6Q4SI5YNu8XHofVrLSQwoqZHprB3iyXfIlnhcLWqp8e3ziszQ3PC ehzlRIeu91hmiurR7MxyigTyY2GuOeBVW9rc+lnxf/hbEE8f7+jblQyyWxctw5XAvdAp MFeK9WYOYd9+PVq3+hfHo6MSt7NqBWPrLKyEn467+Het2JM1S/l4NmlkI7I5D/y+vm/Y 680+5DTos0LO6VssydlMBViL+O3AM06Ge9ZefeLjIKT68xfLbpCTrmMLbchL0i4zvCk0 mKVg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=XLqjC9KStQTHBAnT4yb2yLeccedid1GCWQ8GiwavBd4=; b=VWxBPLqrWsP0pc66R511VRGm5q5gyhkd3O0USbgEjjJ/Y5tNTGNpj3tUpsRgx6W3Fq LJl9G22YAvR/TYbDW11kMLZBYnXUuQz8wTJ4F+kJsVHszHTsUbIyr7Fs+wfevanf/tuo HO2OMs956BtAjuEorEz3F4ARJo7hEfQnq8awC+3eyUjeEx7vROpkOomtLnt7/svMUSQ7 zbs85maW+VhXh/y+l57QSwrtk8+TTZu9ytek1KcCQXZB+fXEEMzeQM7Exbi+tze4Pig7 Yjy8NBgD9dx2fHxnKTdFQQAt05aordDMvIonasQvjjr+2UtM92y9xPLezeHjMc9yMXaE ToNQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532LuFognonqBI1HhJUAC68n/Gnkw4ukrTssno4ZBwlyGOt5vOnJ DjLS/hm10QjoW/J561GScFxOVl+rdqbQbi0r9jtKExwk
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyTy6cCSVp+N2W8/MrtENKl4GbtYBCPngBnWCwb377QxF9jTX9OCRfBVu88uMJZyKJ9J+zcKrvJ7hQTXfFtniE=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6602:3404:: with SMTP id n4mr9013904ioz.45.1631893100945; Fri, 17 Sep 2021 08:38:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CA+YzgTvvwy=0Pstp79UNkjKF014Y=b96=uMMaDU35uLTAVj0Aw@mail.gmail.com> <CA+YzgTtuM6er=BqCLmNkDxJHMpcWN4kz69pkbu=B3U2kAU5kAQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+YzgTtuM6er=BqCLmNkDxJHMpcWN4kz69pkbu=B3U2kAU5kAQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2021 21:07:43 +0530
Message-ID: <CAB75xn51ambL=9xfjCmdsDz=zDiyaOWxQtfuHWPNV3xBgRz2MQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000097e3af05cc32b886"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/B7rtG_oCGPB7T3fdhHPAo7GGvxE>
Subject: Re: [Teas] WG Adoption Poll - draft-wd-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang-04
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: Fri, 17 Sep 2021 15:38:28 -0000
Hi, This is a consolidated reply to multiple messages. I have snipped to the key points. Apologies if I missed some. <https://notes.ietf.org/#Sergio-said0>Sergio said Originally when VN model was presented in a couple of IETF meeting, the YANG model was completely decoupled from TEAS topology, but comments from most of TEAS WG, was to avoid defining “new YANG constructs” and instead to use what we have already in TEAS topology, and the authors have updated the model accordingly. This comment applies also to the YANG model for IETF network slicing. [Dhruv]: I agree with the history but disagree with the conclusion :) The main objective is to model based on the definition and framework of the IETF network slices (which does not describe the IETF network slice in terms of VN, AP, VNAP…). The modeling approach we used is more akin to a fully independent LxSM model that does not describe the service in terms of topology. Further, we wanted to avoid any coupling with TE models as there are other ways to realize slice such as MT, FlexAlgo, etc. So to do a tight coupling with TE topo for the IETF network slice would be a mistake. Based on another comment from the TEAS WG,the term ACTN has also been removed from the draft not to limit the VN YANG model applicability only to ACTN. Therefore, it is possible to use the VN YANG model also in other networks. [Dhruv]: As of the current state of the models, the tight coupling with TE topo is a hindrance. There is a current on going draft in TEAS, that I like and contribute, https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-busi-teas-te-topology-profiles-02.txt, that already describe how TEAS topology can be profiled to address not TE network. [Dhruv]: That would be nice, but the key here is to define IETF network slice service independently and not in the terms of a topology (same as LxSM). This model defines the customer view (intent?) of the IETF network slice in the easiest terms independently without the extra baggage! <https://notes.ietf.org/#Xueyan-said>Xueyan said If there is existing technology (such as ACTN VN, L2SM, L3SM, TE YANG, etc.) can be reused with necessary augmentations for the realization of NSC NBI YANG, we should refer to them but not to specify a new one. [Dhruv]: Surely, if the WG thought there is a need for new concepts and terms to describe IETF network slices in draft-ietf-teas-network-slices, it is logical to model them on their own. Yes, they have a similar structure, but that is normal for most of the service models. <https://notes.ietf.org/#Kenichi-asked>Kenichi asked why don’t we discuss to enhance/augment an existing nbi as the nbi solution? [Dhruv]: We did try to capture this in the Appendix. It's clear that we need to bring that discussion back up into the main text on the design philosophy behind this model. - The VN model is tightly coupled with TE topology. The IETF network slice can be realized with non-TE techniques such as FlexAlgo/MT and thus any tight coupling is not acceptable. - The constraints (which are TE specific) are buried deep inside the TE topology abstract node connectivity matrix and do not map easily with SLO/SLE. - The IETF network slice endpoint is not described in terms of AP/VNAP and thus does not map with ease. According to Figure 1 of draft-king-teas-applicability-actn-slicing-10, NSC NBI can be replaced with CMI. If the new nbi is created, we have to parallelly implement two nbis or just wrap CMI with NSC NBI. From one of mobile operators’ capex perspective, we don’t want to do such effort, since we believe major ietf network slice requirements can be covered by ACTN. [Dhruv]: CMI is not one YANG model, there are a bunch of them <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-teas-actn-yang-08#section-4.1> already. Our model could join the group. One would use this technology (and TE) agnostic model only if it needs to, if the existing set of technology-specific models are found to be appropriate by the consumer it is perfectly fine to use that interface. It is akin to use the slice realization technique directly. The key is that there is a gap identified for the technology-agnostic model and this fills that gap. We’re wondering what’s difficulty to augment the VN model. [Dhruv]: See above. We plan to also document them in the draft. <https://notes.ietf.org/#Young-said>Young said One resolution I can think of would be to combine the two models into one single model. I believe this is still possible from a modeling standpoint. This may result in some delay for implementation, yet this option might be much better than having two standards models. [Dhruv]: You could do that if we go back and redesign the whole thing and also define the IETF network slicing concepts in terms of VN and AP/VNAP. I don't think that's a good idea! <https://notes.ietf.org/#Daniele-pointed-out-in-the-other-thread>Daniele pointed out in the other thread If multiple options are acknowledged by the WG, then there should be a document saying something like: In case X, option A should be used In case Y, option B should be used In case Z, options A and C should be used [Dhruv]: That is a good suggestion. At least in this document, we can add where do we see a need for a technology-agnostic model and how it does not mean that this NBI is the only way to deliver the IETF network slice service! Have a good weekend! Thanks! Dhruv On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 5:39 PM Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com> wrote: > WG, > > Clearly, there needs to be more discussion on this topic before we can > draw consensus on the progress of this document. There will be > dedicated time set aside at the upcoming interim meeting (Sept 27th) > to debate the approach advocated in this draft (define a new service > model from scratch) and other alternatives specified on the list > (use ietf-vn as is; define a new service model by augmenting ietf-vn). > > The authors of draft-wd-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang will have a > slot in the interim to reiterate their rationale for choosing the current > approach. If anyone wants to present a counter approach, please do > send in a slot request. > > In the meantime, we do expect the debate/discussion to continue > on this thread. > > Regards, > Pavan and Lou > > On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 10:07 AM Vishnu Pavan Beeram < > vishnupavan@gmail.com> wrote: > >> All, >> >> This is start of a *two* week poll on making >> draft-wd-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang-04 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 >> > _______________________________________________ > Teas mailing list > Teas@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas >
- [Teas] WG Adoption Poll - draft-wd-teas-ietf-netw… Vishnu Pavan Beeram
- Re: [Teas] WG Adoption Poll - draft-wd-teas-ietf-… Wubo (lana)
- Re: [Teas] WG Adoption Poll - draft-wd-teas-ietf-… Lizhenbin
- Re: [Teas] WG Adoption Poll - draft-wd-teas-ietf-… Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)
- Re: [Teas] WG Adoption Poll - draft-wd-teas-ietf-… Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [Teas] WG Adoption Poll - draft-wd-teas-ietf-… Srihari Sangli
- Re: [Teas] WG Adoption Poll - draft-wd-teas-ietf-… Tarek Saad
- Re: [Teas] WG Adoption Poll - draft-wd-teas-ietf-… Kiran Makhijani
- Re: [Teas] WG Adoption Poll - draft-wd-teas-ietf-… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [Teas] WG Adoption Poll - draft-wd-teas-ietf-… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Teas] WG Adoption Poll - draft-wd-teas-ietf-… Ogaki, Kenichi
- Re: [Teas] WG Adoption Poll - draft-wd-teas-ietf-… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [Teas] WG Adoption Poll - draft-wd-teas-ietf-… Wubo (lana)
- Re: [Teas] WG Adoption Poll - draft-wd-teas-ietf-… Ogaki, Kenichi
- Re: [Teas] WG Adoption Poll - draft-wd-teas-ietf-… Wubo (lana)
- Re: [Teas] WG Adoption Poll - draft-wd-teas-ietf-… Qin Wu
- Re: [Teas] WG Adoption Poll - draft-wd-teas-ietf-… 韩博文(联通集团中国联通研究院- 本部)
- Re: [Teas] WG Adoption Poll - draft-wd-teas-ietf-… song.xueyan2
- Re: [Teas] WG Adoption Poll -draft-wd-teas-ietf-n… 韩柳燕
- Re: [Teas] WG Adoption Poll - draft-wd-teas-ietf-… tom petch
- Re: [Teas] WG Adoption Poll - draft-wd-teas-ietf-… Belotti, Sergio (Nokia - IT/Vimercate)
- Re: [Teas] WG Adoption Poll - draft-wd-teas-ietf-… Young Lee
- Re: [Teas] WG Adoption Poll - draft-wd-teas-ietf-… Ogaki, Kenichi
- Re: [Teas] WG Adoption Poll - draft-wd-teas-ietf-… LUIS MIGUEL CONTRERAS MURILLO
- Re: [Teas] WG Adoption Poll - draft-wd-teas-ietf-… Vishnu Pavan Beeram
- Re: [Teas] WG Adoption Poll - draft-wd-teas-ietf-… Ogaki, Kenichi
- Re: [Teas] WG Adoption Poll - draft-wd-teas-ietf-… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [Teas] WG Adoption Poll - draft-wd-teas-ietf-… Tarek Saad
- Re: [Teas] WG Adoption Poll - draft-wd-teas-ietf-… Ogaki, Kenichi
- Re: [Teas] WG Adoption Poll - draft-wd-teas-ietf-… Dhruv Dhody
- Re: [Teas] WG Adoption Poll - draft-wd-teas-ietf-… Ogaki, Kenichi
- Re: [Teas] WG Adoption Poll - draft-wd-teas-ietf-… Wubo (lana)
- Re: [Teas] WG Adoption Poll - draft-wd-teas-ietf-… Belotti, Sergio (Nokia - IT/Vimercate)
- Re: [Teas] WG Adoption Poll - draft-wd-teas-ietf-… Wubo (lana)
- Re: [Teas] WG Adoption Poll - draft-wd-teas-ietf-… Ogaki, Kenichi
- Re: [Teas] WG Adoption Poll - draft-wd-teas-ietf-… Wubo (lana)
- Re: [Teas] WG Adoption Poll - draft-wd-teas-ietf-… Ogaki, Kenichi
- Re: [Teas] WG Adoption Poll - draft-wd-teas-ietf-… Wubo (lana)
- Re: [Teas] WG Adoption Poll - draft-wd-teas-ietf-… Ogaki, Kenichi
- Re: [Teas] WG Adoption Poll - draft-wd-teas-ietf-… Wubo (lana)
- Re: [Teas] WG Adoption Poll - draft-wd-teas-ietf-… Ogaki, Kenichi
- Re: [Teas] WG Adoption Poll - draft-wd-teas-ietf-… Vishnu Pavan Beeram
- Re: [Teas] WG Adoption Poll - draft-wd-teas-ietf-… Wubo (lana)