Re: [Teas] Two more examples for draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices

Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Wed, 03 August 2022 21:04 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
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 BBE03C14F724 for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Aug 2022 14:04:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 G64kcYytLM5q for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Aug 2022 14:04:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta5.iomartmail.com (mta5.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.155]) (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 3AEA4C14F718 for <teas@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Aug 2022 14:04:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vs2.iomartmail.com (vs2.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.123]) by mta5.iomartmail.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 273L491s032545; Wed, 3 Aug 2022 22:04:09 +0100
Received: from vs2.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 924B146050; Wed, 3 Aug 2022 22:04:09 +0100 (BST)
Received: from vs2.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8458B4604C; Wed, 3 Aug 2022 22:04:09 +0100 (BST)
Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.248]) by vs2.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Wed, 3 Aug 2022 22:04:09 +0100 (BST)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([84.93.40.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 273L47nS002765 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 3 Aug 2022 22:04:08 +0100
Reply-To: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: "'Dongjie \(Jimmy\)'" <jie.dong@huawei.com>, <teas@ietf.org>
References: <0c9901d8a4b4$fb618350$f22489f0$@olddog.co.uk> <7fb2a7cbd4fc40868ae09dc263e2b565@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <7fb2a7cbd4fc40868ae09dc263e2b565@huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2022 22:04:06 +0100
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <0f3401d8a77c$92b701c0$b8250540$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQKpKGR1oh0vQ3g1zzSk0neAWepetwI1UURYq+r3DWA=
Content-Language: en-gb
X-Originating-IP: 84.93.40.1
X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.1.0.2090-9.0.0.1002-27056.002
X-TM-AS-Result: No--11.712-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--11.712-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.1.0.2090-9.0.1002-27056.002
X-TMASE-Result: 10--11.712000-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: hls5oAVArl/micbHRUsaV3FPUrVDm6jtkYC3rjkUXRJMoH6XIsx2UwQ9 n8U23GDf7GLBH8Gg2VeP1k7a4QkoKGmhrOl03qGf9Ib/6w+1lWR4Xox68xVlQD7oP33ajBeI6SI /MT2nuHxiFOPWLhdkkC8cRwTHQ3O69HdigT3g7eaL3n8qdYJTdPlSepWcgdLPDpCUEeEFm7DQC1 M6bGl4KPgtXT3Mb0CUaBPsjENfflT0a+dotjUlLDiEPRj9j9rvNkknTRICN7CBJDg+1RHZRLyMT n5TrRhz4vM1YF6AJbZcLc3sLtjOtxPHolqp8VrC2n9TdfAvmQKw7M6dyuYKg46HM5rqDwqtU/mV IL4gDkeMLnSH8TjKB0auVgGMvzdNR1nMDXwt6+yKxfjRXjGlvA==
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/Eh1RULg3VpqXhLXxWf3pDY9CKVE>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Two more examples for draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Wed, 03 Aug 2022 21:04:27 -0000

Hi Jie,

Thanks for these thought.

Comments in line.

> Thanks for proposing text for the hierarchical and multi-domain E2E
network
> slice cases. They look good to me in general, and I agree with adding them
as
> examples to the slice framework draft. 
>
> Here are a few clarification comments: 
>
> 1. The example in figure 10 talks about "bridging connectivity", which is
a little
>     confusing to me. My reading is that figure gives an example of using
hierarchical
>     network slices to provide the connectivity with required SLA/SLO to an
upper
>     layer network slice, then I'm not sure whether it needs to be called
something
>     special as "Bridge Connectivity". Or maybe I misunderstood something
about
>     this case?

Ah, yes, the term "bridge" has too many meanings.
Here we just mean providing connectivity to connect points in the upper
layer.
I'll fix the text.

> 2. In the description about the coordination of multiple intra-domain
network
>     slices, it is suggested to make some change to the following sentence
to align
>     with the network slice definition:
>
>  Old:
>     The coordination activity involves binding the SDPs, and hence the
>     connectivity constructs, to achieve end-to-end connectivity.
>
>  Proposed:
>     The coordination activity involves binding the SDPs, and hence the
>     connectivity constructs, to achieve end-to-end connectivity with the 
>     required SLA and SLO.

Sure.  Although s/SLA and SLO/SLOs and SLEs/

Thanks,
Adrian