Re: [Teas] Moving forward with draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices

[Xufeng Liu <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, May 9, 2021 at 10:09 PM Ogaki, Kenichi <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Adrian and All,
>
> >I agree with Loa, moving the definition of how the term "customer" is
> interpreted in the document to the Terms and Abbreviations section seems
> very reasonable.
> +1
> I don't stick to "customer", but a discussion how about rephrasing
> "provider" with "producer" may also rise when I choose non-ietf-standard
> "consumer" term,
>
> Related to this, should we rephrase " IETF Network Slice user" if there is
> any intention to leave?
> 5.2.  Expressing Connectivity Intents
> The NSC northbound interface (NBI) can be used to communicate between IETF
> Network Slice users (or customers) and the NSC.
> An IETF Network Slice user may be a network operator who, in turn,
> provides the IETF Network Slice to another IETF Network Slice user or
> customer.
>

During the discussions on TE Topology Model, there was a similar discussion
on such terminology. At that time, the pair "client/provider" was picked
over "consumer" and "customer". The term "client" has my vote here too.


> >the expectation currently is that the IETF Network Slice Service will use
> something along the lines of the service models (L2SM and L3SM).  It seems
> reasonable to enhance those with something about service functions, quite
> possibly along the lines you are already working on.
> >
> > [TS] (snip) Alternatively, does it help if the NBI request expresses
> such inclusions/exclusions policy using/referencing a  customer-centric
> topology that a provider may have furnished earlier to the customer, and
> which the provider can readily map to their
>
> FYI, L3SM tried to let the customer define such policy against PE site in
> sec. 6.6.
> I know this is non-exhaustive for IETF Network Slice.
>
>
> Editorials:
> - I'm not sure if recent RFCs should refer SNMP as an NBI in the sense of
> https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/writable-mib-module/ .
> 5.2.  Expressing Connectivity Intents
> o  SNMP ([RFC3417], [RFC3412] and [RFC3414] uses binary encoding (ASN.1).
> o  For data modeling, YANG ([RFC6020] and [RFC7950]) may be used to model
> configuration and other data for NETCONF, RESTCONF, and GNMI - among
> others; ProtoBufs can be used to model gRPC and GNMI data; Structure of
> Management Information (SMI) [RFC2578] may be used to define Management
> Information Base (MIB) modules for SNMP, using an adapted subset of OSI's
> Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1, 1988).
>
> - multipoint-to-point twice
> .2.  IETF Network Slice Endpoints
> As noted in Section 3.1, an IETF Network Slice describes connectivity
> between multiple endpoints across the underlying network.  These
> connectivity types are: point-to-point, point-to-multipoint,
> multipoint-to-point, multipoint-to-point, or multipoint-to-multipoint.
>
>
> All the best,
> Kenichi
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Teas <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Gyan Mishra
> Sent: Saturday, May 8, 2021 10:55 AM
> To: Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>; Med Boucadair <
> [e-mail]>; TEAS WG <[e-mail]>; Loa Andersson <
> [e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [Teas] Moving forward with draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices
>
> I agree with Loa and am not crazy about either customer or consumer as
> either refers to a “human” endpoint and not a system endpoint made of
> hardware or software like the term “CE”.
>
> +1 for Customer over Consumer as a customer is human endpoint that has
> paid for service SLA where  a consumer is  broader term like subscriber
> describing for example all broadband subscriber community.
>
> On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 3:55 PM Greg Mirsky <[e-mail] <mailto:
> [e-mail]> > wrote:
>
>
>         Hi,
>         I agree with Loa, moving the definition of how the term "customer"
> is interpreted in the document to the Terms and Abbreviations section seems
> very reasonable. Perhaps the section can include two sub-sections -
> Abbreviations/Acronyms and Terms/Terminology. I've noticed that there is
> the forward reference in the section:
>            The above terminology is defined in greater details in the
> remainder
>            of this document.
>
>         It could be those other definitions of terms used in the specific
> context in the document be collected in the new sub-section.
>
>         Regards,
>         Greg
>
>
>         On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 12:32 AM Loa Andersson <[e-mail] <mailto:
> [e-mail]> > wrote:
>
>
>                 Adrian,
>
>                 That is acceptable.
>
>                 As you said it is late in the document, and really not in
> a definitions
>                 section. I don't know if we can we place something in
> Section "2.  Terms
>                 and Abbreviations", but there seems to be only
> abbreviations.
>
>                 Your wholesale example:
>
>                 I think you forget about wholesale. What do you call the
> school that
>                 buys food at the shop to provide to the children? Do you
> call the school
>                 the customer, or do you refer to the cook who buys the
> food as the
>                 customer? The contract is with the school, negotiated by
> the cook,
>                 signed by the bursar.
>
>                 I think "the school! is the customer, which is OK in this
> context. The
>                 cook and the school kids could be viewed as consumers",
> one removed from
>                 the system.
>
>                 It strikes me that "Customer System" and "IETF Slice" are
> somewhat
>                 similar, the risk is that we talk about "customer" (even
> if we change
>                 it), and "slice" (even though if is really "IETF Slice)",
>
>                 Having said that, though it is not my task to call
> consensus, I think we
>                 have a enough support to use "customer".
>
>                 I rest my case.
>
>                 /Loa
>
>
>                 On 05/05/2021 13:05, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>                 > We currently have (in section 5.1, which may be a bit
> late in the document)
>                 >
>                 >     Customer:  A customer is the requester of an IETF
> Network Slice.
>                 >        Customers may request monitoring of SLOs.  A
> customer may manage
>                 >        the IETF Network Slice service directly by
> interfacing with the
>                 >        IETF NSC or indirectly through an orchestrator.
>                 >
>                 > We could add "A customer may be an entity such as an
> enterprise network or a
>                 > network operator, an individual working at such an
> entity, a private
>                 > individual contracting for a service, or an application
> or software
>                 > component."
>                 >
>                 > Cheers,
>                 > Adrian
>                 >
>                 > -----Original Message-----
>                 > From: [e-mail] <mailto:
> [e-mail]>  <[e-mail] <mailto:
> [e-mail]> >
>                 > Sent: 05 May 2021 11:58
>                 > To: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> ;
> 'Loa Andersson' <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; [e-mail] <mailto:
> [e-mail]>
>                 > Subject: RE: [Teas] Moving forward with
> draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices
>                 >
>                 > Hi all,
>                 >
>                 >> Anyone else got anything to say on the topic?
>                 >
>                 > I would simply use "customer" and make sure the
> definition is generic enough
>                 > to denote a role/entity.
>                 >
>                 > Thanks.
>                 >
>                 > Cheers,
>                 > Med
>                 >
>                 >> -----Message d'origine-----
>                 >> De : Teas [mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:
> [e-mail]> ] De la part de Adrian Farrel
>                 >> Envoyé : mercredi 5 mai 2021 11:59
>                 >> À : 'Loa Andersson' <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >;
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>                 >> Objet : Re: [Teas] Moving forward with
> draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-
>                 >> slices
>                 >>
>                 >> Hi Loa,
>                 >>
>                 >>> On customer vs. consumer Adrian says:
>                 >>>
>                 >>>>    c. "Consumer" vs "customer". I have made this
> consistent (we
>                 >> only need to
>                 >>>>         use one term). I selected "Customer" because
> that seemed
>                 >> best, but I
>                 >>>>         know some people prefer "consumer". Please
> discuss if you
>                 >> are not
>                 >>>>         happy.
>                 >>>
>                 >>> If the choice is between customer vs. consumer, I
> prefer customer.
>                 >>
>                 >> OK. So I made an improvement, but...
>                 >>
>                 >>> I don't know if it is too late to bring this up.
>                 >>
>                 >> It's never too late to bring things up.
>                 >>
>                 >>> But I really don't like either, normal language has a
> strong
>                 >>> indication that that that a customer is a person (a
> person that
>                 >> walks
>                 >>> inte to your
>                 >>> shop) and consumer is also a person /that eats what I
> bought at
>                 >> your shop).
>                 >>
>                 >> I think you forget about wholesale. What do you call
> the school that
>                 >> buys food at the shop to provide to the children? Do
> you call the
>                 >> school the customer, or do you refer to the cook who
> buys the food as
>                 >> the customer? The contract is with the school,
> negotiated by the
>                 >> cook, signed by the bursar.
>                 >>
>                 >>> IETF specifies "systems", including what goes into SW
> and HW, but
>                 >> we
>                 >>> don't specify normative rules for human behavior.
>                 >>>
>                 >>> I don't know if we can talk about Customer System?
>                 >>
>                 >> I'm afraid of this getting heavy for the reader. There
> are 73
>                 >> instances of "customer" in the document, and "customer
> system" may
>                 >> become tiresome to read.
>                 >>
>                 >> Anyone else got anything to say on the topic?
>                 >>
>                 >> Cheers,
>                 >> Adrian
>                 >>
>                 >> _______________________________________________
>                 >> Teas mailing list
>                 >> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>                 >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>                 >
>                 >
> ____________________________________________________________________________
>                 > _____________________________________________
>                 >
>                 > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des
> informations
>                 > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
>                 > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans
> autorisation. Si vous avez recu
>                 > ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
>                 > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces
> jointes. Les messages
>                 > electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
>                 > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete
> altere, deforme ou
>                 > falsifie. Merci.
>                 >
>                 > This message and its attachments may contain
> confidential or privileged
>                 > information that may be protected by law;
>                 > they should not be distributed, used or copied without
> authorisation.
>                 > If you have received this email in error, please notify
> the sender and
>                 > delete this message and its attachments.
>                 > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for
> messages that have been
>                 > modified, changed or falsified.
>                 > Thank you.
>                 >
>                 > _______________________________________________
>                 > Teas mailing list
>                 > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>                 > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>                 >
>
>                 --
>
>                 Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>                 Senior MPLS Expert
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>                 Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: [phone]
> 64
>
>                 _______________________________________________
>                 Teas mailing list
>                 [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>                 https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         Teas mailing list
>         [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>
>
> --
>
>
>  <http://www.verizon.com/>
>
>
> Gyan Mishra
>
> Network Solutions Architect
>
> Email [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>
> M 301 502-1347
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>