Re: [Teas] Network Slicing design team definitions- transport slice

Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 02 September 2020 06:14 UTC

Return-Path: <jefftant.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 167873A0C1D for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Sep 2020 23:14:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 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, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 ZOOFC77INfpo for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Sep 2020 23:14:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x435.google.com (mail-pf1-x435.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::435]) (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 510B43A0BEB for <teas@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Sep 2020 23:14:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x435.google.com with SMTP id d22so2254583pfn.5 for <teas@ietf.org>; Tue, 01 Sep 2020 23:14:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version:subject:date:message-id :references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=9Rxtk4uamdK7ZP4Fv0TivNUSR7YNTTiYC4GKl9B9u80=; b=ecBh1lKctPCXptXm1tzVAdTrZNiWeCq7suMloWD4NJTC1i7voohbuPtoZW11kG9D8D X0qkNGyqXCKbEoiFMlU11Ry3qcu+lBQKYUafgSZHB5iVb6HTld1x9a6Kf0v4SDvv2eFY jaAO5MuA0sxY4rupoBW2a5cOAE95qANhN4o8Nx5/yGsxTTL7z22ibFVywAK+WBi5QElf xmqP0oBjvDi/4wSKTdgbowy1WrR4KtXKsdVTylw7eFG807kFURIcOmoJ5a/w6j3Tlxek VYBiOqxADQaxhzBfD8+p+4w17QSblfZGn3HC4nhAJGqY86uWbTX8W09paA85kK3gFEw3 oXjg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version :subject:date:message-id:references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=9Rxtk4uamdK7ZP4Fv0TivNUSR7YNTTiYC4GKl9B9u80=; b=eN0e0TfPc5yPkmwtq+CJjR8JD7hxVKkOcWG6BZ/RNaKX2WAurL3NvDI5CwCXW34Pbo r4oDaIkRSrGZ3YnSk5pvGGLVx4w5Ze3u0kqeS3gBD0WoG0Ov01xp4aq5GjfDDHUstQab T39L4AqBtv9d3hXWX422iFe7u4x870ubJOWV1Q/T0xyxkVRDdcJBudMRqoVnPsEHhQqF A1NDnDbOUR7o0CaFSZSKnG63mMQut6mmmmWEYzBqg+cd9qc3Nd7afOPOzjwkcaZaD8J5 68E+Jqlp9PEEvK5UbChlZDauoyxVkrSE957Y1gPYyb21eyKHm3jo5PRk7SD2O6pAhuDS DZHQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530XLSAJV26PPcIcHX3nKJpZPM+JMFS2uFSh3cxqinJJlpTQqN6e WoUWamLL24VzW7fkxlLcdvs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyBSK5zjoRkIxHx7duR+89rWmQy55CXnqKSN6YOHvHF2NNQ27sL6jneBuvzKXS/qu4eru+R5g==
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:838d:: with SMTP id u13mr1786021pfm.158.1599027270724; Tue, 01 Sep 2020 23:14:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.12] (c-73-63-232-212.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [73.63.232.212]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t63sm3940190pgt.50.2020.09.01.23.14.29 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 01 Sep 2020 23:14:29 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-66AD991F-4D73-483A-9FC0-C9DE1B3C4EE6
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 23:14:26 -0700
Message-Id: <0FAD08FA-53EB-4C80-89BD-AE5CF6219330@gmail.com>
References: <E7F41401-6B79-4CCD-B625-DBBB5D068416@nokia.com>
Cc: Kiran Makhijani <kiranm@futurewei.com>, "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <db3546@att.com>, TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <E7F41401-6B79-4CCD-B625-DBBB5D068416@nokia.com>
To: "Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <reza.rokui@nokia.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (17G80)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/BtUlMkroGwvE1D_omEgOksuowl4>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Network Slicing design team definitions- transport slice
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, 02 Sep 2020 06:14:34 -0000

+1

To add to Reza’ points - the term has been thoroughly  discussed and agreed upon by the design team.

Regards,
Jeff

> On Sep 1, 2020, at 10:57, Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <reza.rokui@nokia.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> All,
>  
> Thanks Kiran. As the co-author of the draft, I agree with Kiran’s response.
>  
> In summary, the main reason was to differentiate between “Network Slice” and its components which depends on the use case might be “RAN Slice”, “Core Slice” or “Transport Slice”.
> As pointed out in email below, we on purpose removed “Network” from the name to make sure “Network Slice” and “Transport Slice” are clearly differentiated.
>  
> Please note that the 5G is one example of  network slicing. So, in the context of “ 5G Network Slice” we will have all of the three (i.e RAN, Core and Transport Slices).
> If for example the use case is DCI, there is no RAN and Core slices and the “DCI Network Slice” will contain only “Transport  slices”.
>  
> Since the concept of “Transport slice” discuss at IETF is general and not just for 5G, the authors of the draft tried to generalize the idea and as a result the name “Transport Slice” was used.
>  
> Cheers,
>  
> Reza
>  
> From: Teas <teas-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Kiran Makhijani <kiranm@futurewei.com>
> Date: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 at 11:35 AM
> To: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <db3546@att.com>om>, TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [Teas] Network Slicing design team definitions- transport slice
>  
> Hi Deborah,
> It was a deliberate effort to avoid using term network slice – which is a broader concept of “End-to-end network slice” and everything is not IETF specific. By use of term transport, we are able to  (quite precisely) scope our work in the context of IP/MPLS technologies – things IETF concern with. Another advantage is clarity from the network slice concept in 3GPP which has already been defined and described in a particular way. I will find it confusing if we had to always explain that 3gpp-network slices are different than ietf-network slices. Because they are going to be different in functionality.
>  
> Transport slices capture only the connectivity specific details for things we refer to as transport networks. So far it has aligned will with ACTN, enhance VPN and other TE related work. We will not know how to specify, mange or onboard a RAN, Wireless or a vertical-centric functionality, so there is no point in making assumptions about them in our design and terminology.
>  
> -Kiran
>  
> From: Teas <teas-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A
> Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2020 7:31 AM
> To: TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>
> Subject: [Teas] Network Slicing design team definitions- transport slice
>  
> Hi,
> (speaking as an individual)
>  
> Picking up on Jari’s comment “sometimes people want to use labels that are a bit more imprecise, but I think we should strive to avoid such labels as much as we can”, can you give more background on the choice of the term “transport slice”?
>  
> I noted while you have text on the use of “transport” by 3GPP as specifying a very specific sub-network in the radio network (which excludes the handoff to the rest of the network), you referenced RFC5921 (MPLS-TP) for the term “transport”.
>  
> There was a long thread of mail on ACTN, RFC8453, to move away from the term “transport” to “TE networks” which was agreed to be more specific/appropriate for TEAS. Considering IETF is already using the term “network slicing” (including TEAS RFC8453) and 3GPP use of the term, I don’t understand the use of “transport” in this document.
>  
> Considering IETF already uses the term “network slice” and 3GPP uses the term (and all the industry SDOs), I am concerned we will be confusing the industry, especially as “transport” is an imprecise term for TEAS work. Is this work a subset and scoped only to the 3GPP “transport” cloud (and implied use of MPLS-TP)? Or is it planned to be generic (for all TE networks)?
>  
> Deborah
> (speaking as individual)
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list
> Teas@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas