Re: [Teas] Network Slicing design team definitions - isolation and resolution

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Sun, 26 April 2020 02:34 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 024AE3A0874 for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Apr 2020 19:34:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 VHSdtc5xNmnz for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Apr 2020 19:34:07 -0700 (PDT)
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 EF4033A0873 for <teas@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 Apr 2020 19:34:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 498sRf51Z8z6GDYK; Sat, 25 Apr 2020 19:34:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1587868446; bh=pGzTrZwXuRm435OUQOMaiHJYHAd+jpZo1U36EeU500Y=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=JSkZ7zayz7ndn1tiS+eTBxhL4eDsuyc2dbNT8L1F5j25yWp0GY3feH48P5jEtYGJq D1UWxfydV59MJQI03sLaQ8iWWKa42lEo49EJqwqAmaXcjRxhcpZ4ReitPikhyFzCUP it+UwKiQmngdz+2hJlUHiecP93gdJ4mbfeU0YHX4=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at a2.tigertech.net
Received: from [192.168.128.43] (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net [209.255.163.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 498sRf0Y5Fz6GD3v; Sat, 25 Apr 2020 19:34:05 -0700 (PDT)
To: Zhenghaomian <zhenghaomian@huawei.com>, "teas@ietf.org" <teas@ietf.org>
References: <E0C26CAA2504C84093A49B2CAC3261A43F82E780@dggeml531-mbs.china.huawei.com>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <5c76be49-040c-10ac-6e1a-53b3f31a1fba@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2020 22:34:05 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <E0C26CAA2504C84093A49B2CAC3261A43F82E780@dggeml531-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=gbk; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/BuP1BDeGGw2pBG67MXouu35E6aI>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Network Slicing design team definitions - isolation and resolution
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: Sun, 26 Apr 2020 02:34:08 -0000

(trimmed)
What is the user perceivable effect that the user is asking for when you 
say "if the user requests isolation"?

Yours,
Joel

On 4/25/2020 10:31 PM, Zhenghaomian wrote:
> Hi, Kiran, Joel,
> 
...
> BTW, regarding the isolation, I don't see the necessity to argue whether it should be in SLO or not. The isolation itself, can either be requested by the user of the transport slice (then from NBI of TSC) to express the demand of reliability, or be offered by the provider of the transport slice (then from the SBI of TSC) to achieve the SLO requested from the user. In other words, if the user requests certain level of isolation in an SLO, such isolation should be provided; if the user does not request certain level of isolation (no isolation request in SLO), then there may be some isolation provided to satisfy the user's request.
> 
> Best wishes,
> Haomian