Return-Path: 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 12713C14F71E; Wed, 28 Aug 2024 06:51:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.104 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.104 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=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 ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c8wxGykbTZcf; Wed, 28 Aug 2024 06:51:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wm1-x32c.google.com (mail-wm1-x32c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32c]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39CC2C14F609; Wed, 28 Aug 2024 06:51:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wm1-x32c.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-4281faefea9so58329365e9.2; Wed, 28 Aug 2024 06:51:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1724853070; x=1725457870; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Y9xSs/P/7WoMD84xjHx+CEDU3pbCIGBzayFk6bton9U=; b=D6cmHaadS2BlUvDmXNqO3r5IURgdLDpbOBoS/vu8RHJabwSUcohKE4xS5XZdATNeQJ nXjjqVtxnB74rRoWVRMzlspf6XhcA2ox4uIvpQhURV2ZXBsULluHjLoClQVYgvqJ4Qiq ti1IueyWotLJdY5Ox9o7J4FNEWqYwsqoi/1SlNZ5T3Z3bOLHratl1WWsXPr/IiZt+L4D m4drFH8Pk/PxNWFvChvDMSOlPA67+OZnLbMDYbD4eMl2Wgkp6bXrDULD061o7XaO+MH6 KTXdyfgXeEPzL8/TCSgByQAsXTEHR+eYn7GioA1jpnEuqVMR2GHpf/50AEblqhM0XFcW CacQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1724853070; x=1725457870; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=Y9xSs/P/7WoMD84xjHx+CEDU3pbCIGBzayFk6bton9U=; b=DhN4hNl5Afw0t6KzEIOdlXoMHfTyydF5d+q+B+9ATm87LWunYgsW8YU/1ADQIHVw0d DhexpM8lHKCBIAWVU8XYHJ03AexClzQZXJ1UD58Zof4AZ8/B8ESXiFHSM2zccf/LLY8e Yp0AOtmIrpTfAIMgTVcRR73LhxCFcM3g4UMGPllhWvc7sRLIDMWO64CuTwO75PpSep1J qcaZ9nTEr/AmkAsPrcJkoP7lmqJd3xR0EK1tGBz3RNdkTXjq2OcMFP85UElXsOAz7duk vhCCgve7XCwP1jXGaZM19J/QtRD8fd7QhjEr1gAalTF/THn7NZHU27FMs+2BQbE4EmOI Qtkw== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXgA9Wcph/FAiLVOYd5DN/WY8aQghkh/R1wZIjFbvQtZFm6C2jlpdPpCq1/0HEBtOuh1YJdUQ5o53wKcQ==@ietf.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Ywj+5J9coFIDaO59GuaSYR+cWp77LaBxnu0FdliCQWKWS3WHLAf STXqDNyxdV01TbX+IKZoaK51NOpZ9PdZC2bo7jwVYU5+/ytRP7rS3dbg/y5jW1AmDoJWT8VYr4N hDeLvwn1AtBAfjzOQ0dVA6LmxGJox2oIU X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGbrSEKmsHPSDvj+gjSqSAZt4ygp678SnlSzcoSnY58OPUezEo7xJTz4oe6FGTZN4+oRr55mjCS3G277aZz2A8= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:d0:b0:368:71bc:2b0c with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-3749680dc30mr1462647f8f.10.1724853069312; Wed, 28 Aug 2024 06:51:09 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Greg Mirsky Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2024 06:50:58 -0700 Message-ID: To: Vishnu Pavan Beeram Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007c7a930620bea6fc" Message-ID-Hash: Q3FWLE46ZIPYTOCQ3YXS4QKJMARVRXGS X-Message-ID-Hash: Q3FWLE46ZIPYTOCQ3YXS4QKJMARVRXGS X-MailFrom: gregimirsky@gmail.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-teas.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: TEAS WG , TEAS WG Chairs X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4 Precedence: list Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5BTeas=5D_Re=3A_2nd_WG_Last_Call=3A_draft-ietf-teas-5g-ns-ip-mpls?= =?utf-8?q?-09_=28*one*_week=29?= List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: --0000000000007c7a930620bea6fc Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Authors and the WG, thank you for your work on this document. One more comment (I've sent it on the earlier WG LC thread) to share: - After a discussion with my colleagues, I found Figure 6 confusing, particularly the part that reflects the relationship between 5G NSO, TN Orchestration, and systems that it contains, i.e., Customer Site Orchestration and RFC 9543 NSC. Some of us interpreted that the down-looking pitchfork indicates that 5G NSO communicates directly with = the components of the TN Orchestration. In contrast, others assumed that the demultiplexing of communications from 5G NSO is the function of the TN Orchestration. Although we understand that the figure presents an exampl= e, it seems like it can be made more straightforward since the scope of the document is the interactions between RFC 9543 NSC and the Provider Netwo= rk. Thus, I have two suggestions, and each can clarify Figure 6 and help a reader: - Reduce Figure 6 to RFC 9543 NSC and the Provider Network; - Alternatively, remove the pitchfork stopping down-looking arrow from 5G NSO at the TN Orchestration (how the TN Orchestration demultiplexes that flow to Customer Site Orchestration and RFC 9543 NSC is outside = the scope of the document). I appreciate your consideration. Regards, Greg On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 11:28=E2=80=AFAM Vishnu Pavan Beeram wrote: > All, > > This starts the 2nd working group last call on > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-5g-ns-ip-mpls/ > > Please note that the previous last call was for version 4 of the document > and several changes have been made to the document since then. The change= s > have been discussed on the list and a summary presented during the WG > session in IETF 120. > > As this is a 2nd last call that is primarily focused on changes since > the previous last call, it closes in *one" week. The working group last > call ends on August 28th, 2024. Please send your comments to the working > group mailing list. > > A diff (v4-v9) can be found at: > > https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=3Ddraft-ietf-teas-5g-ns-ip-mpls= -04&url2=3Ddraft-ietf-teas-5g-ns-ip-mpls-09&difftype=3D--html > > Thank you, > Pavan and Oscar > ps: The following comment from Greg will be considered as part of this 2n= d > LC - > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/Pr7hvoB_RS9ZgGIRGEdCf2rn4bE/ > _______________________________________________ > Teas mailing list -- teas@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to teas-leave@ietf.org > --0000000000007c7a930620bea6fc Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Authors and the WG,=
thank you for your work on this document. One more comment (I've s= ent it on the earlier=C2=A0WG LC thread) to share:
  • After a discussion with my colleagues, I fou= nd Figure 6 confusing, particularly the part that reflects the relationship= between 5G NSO, TN Orchestration, and systems that it contains, i.e., Cust= omer Site Orchestration and RFC 9543 NSC. Some of us interpreted=C2=A0that = the down-looking pitchfork indicates that 5G NSO communicates directly with= the components of the TN Orchestration. In contrast, others assumed that t= he demultiplexing of communications from 5G NSO is the function of the TN O= rchestration. Although we understand that the figure presents an example, i= t seems like it can be made more straightforward since the scope of the doc= ument is the interactions between RFC 9543 NSC and the Provider Network. Th= us, I have two suggestions, and each=C2=A0can clarify Figure 6 and help= a reader:
    • Reduce Figure 6 to RFC 9543 NSC a= nd the Provider Network;
    • Alternati= vely, remove the pitchfork stopping down-looking arrow from 5G NSO at the T= N Orchestration (how the TN Orchestration demultiplexes that flow to Custom= er Site Orchestration and RFC 9543 NSC is outside the scope of the document= ).

I appreciate your consideration.

Regards,

Greg


On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 11:28=E2=80=AFAM Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com> wrote:<= br>
All,

This st= arts the=C2=A02nd=C2=A0working=C2=A0group last call on

Please note that the previous last call was for version 4 of the do= cument and several changes have been made to the document since then. The c= hanges have been discussed on the list and a summary presented during the W= G session in IETF 120.

As this is a 2nd= last call that is primarily focused on changes since the=C2=A0previous las= t call, it closes in *one" week. The working group last call ends on A= ugust 28th, 2024. Please send your comments to the working group mailing li= st.

A diff (v4-v9) can be found at:
ps: The following comment from Greg will be considered as part of= this 2nd LC -
_______________________________________________
Teas mailing list -- tea= s@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to teas-leave@ietf.org
--0000000000007c7a930620bea6fc--