IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Teas] Decision point on scope of draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Mon, 07 March 2022 15:41 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.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 999443A0BFE for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Mar 2022 07:41:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.111
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.111 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.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 e493SeHOUh2i for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Mar 2022 07:41:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (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 211D23A0BFB for <teas@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Mar 2022 07:41:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4KC2kW6mgWz6G7NT; Mon, 7 Mar 2022 07:41:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1646667699; bh=JiKSQXiIkqzeK0a8YFs4mdax5J+cKdha3T47QDogjGs=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=FzP1CVYrVyJb8A7dImHULMqFphcgpGdsbY9ep68UrCqPZyJfZ8VxRWwzu/dpEp1V5 T4P5BMIod4izyTKqHSPbWhOYJA6FxhrNV/kn++/O7XSg3okmn1Sbwhp1ayktibPow3 Auei6cIx6MpqNbV9H7D6eDId5Ot4AhG9D6PPZagE=
X-Quarantine-ID: <RexlA-XseP-9>
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at a2.tigertech.net
Received: from [192.168.22.111] (50-233-136-230-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.233.136.230]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4KC2kW3CRcz6G9Mr; Mon, 7 Mar 2022 07:41:39 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <6f406c06-0271-6c15-7d07-4e9b04ab7975@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2022 10:41:37 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.6.2
Content-Language: en-US
To: Igor Bryskin <i_bryskin@yahoo.com>, 'TEAS WG' <teas@ietf.org>
References: <0eb701d83219$761839e0$6248ada0$@olddog.co.uk> <BY3PR05MB8081B7BA134CC7B0F28C06F8C7089@BY3PR05MB8081.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <914359236.1014617.1646664962120@mail.yahoo.com> <993887645.1046589.1646666639038@mail.yahoo.com>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
In-Reply-To: <993887645.1046589.1646666639038@mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/BtcYpoeT2Tv4JnMWlVxtF8hbzXI>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Decision point on scope of draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices
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: Mon, 07 Mar 2022 15:41:45 -0000

I think I am missing your point Igor.

There are four bullets listed in the introduction.  We could of course 
agree to change that.  Why would we do so?

If there are no differences in the effective needs, them recognizing 
them all is helpful.

If there are differences, knowing what they are and planning early to 
address the broader range seems helpful.

In neither case does narrowing the scope seem to help us.

Yours,
Joel

On 3/7/2022 10:23 AM, Igor Bryskin wrote:
> Pavan,
> 
> What makes you think that what we have been discussing so far goes 
> beyond 5G needs? Specifically,  which exactly connectivity types, SLOs, 
> SLEs, etc. discussed so far will not be required by 5G?
> 
> Lack of focus on 5G, on the other hand, creates confusion. Tell me:
> what does it mean to guarantee SLO or SLE? 5G has a very clear 
> definition of that.
> 
>   Is a bunch of OTN tunnels is a netwrk slice, NRP, bottom up network 
> building option, all of the above, none of the above? Which connectivity 
> service is definitely not a slice?
> 
> Igor
> 
> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android 
> <https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=Global_Internal_YGrowth_AndroidEmailSig__AndroidUsers&af_wl=ym&af_sub1=Internal&af_sub2=Global_YGrowth&af_sub3=EmailSignature>
> 
>     On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 9:56 AM, Igor Bryskin
>     <i_bryskin=40yahoo.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>     _______________________________________________
>     Teas mailing list
>     Teas@ietf.org <mailto:Teas@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list
> Teas@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email