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

Loa Andersson <> Wed, 05 May 2021 08:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E37BC3A15E1 for <>; Wed, 5 May 2021 01:48:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gXUFb6S_oYqa for <>; Wed, 5 May 2021 01:48:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E4963A188A for <>; Wed, 5 May 2021 01:48:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C59C82FD165; Wed, 5 May 2021 10:48:16 +0200 (CEST)
References: <037401d740c5$70a9cc30$51fd6490$>
From: Loa Andersson <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 05 May 2021 10:48:11 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <037401d740c5$70a9cc30$51fd6490$>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Moving forward with draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 May 2021 08:48:27 -0000

Adrian, WG,

On customer vs. consumer Adrian says:

On 04/05/2021 11:11, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>     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.

I don't know if it is too late to bring this 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 eatss what i bought at your shop).

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?



Loa Andersson                        email:
Senior MPLS Expert                
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64