[Teas] Describing the network slicing interfaces and models

Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Mon, 16 November 2020 10:42 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 E1EEB3A07D1 for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 02:42:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 j-FohqWkH-_C for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 02:42:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mta6.iomartmail.com (mta6.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.156]) (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 648433A07CE for <teas@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 02:42:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vs2.iomartmail.com (vs2.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.123]) by mta6.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 0AGAgC95010492; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 10:42:12 GMT
Received: from vs2.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 521792204A; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 10:42:12 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.224]) by vs2.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B24E22048; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 10:42:12 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([87.112.234.140]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 0AGAgBnR022564 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 16 Nov 2020 10:42:11 GMT
Reply-To: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: "'LUIS MIGUEL CONTRERAS MURILLO'" <luismiguel.contrerasmurillo@telefonica.com>
Cc: <teas@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2020 10:42:11 -0000
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <008601d6bc05$242b8aa0$6c829fe0$@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: Ada8BMplE4RO22QjTY2YQyAcd7L0mQ==
Content-Language: en-gb
X-Originating-IP: 87.112.234.140
X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.0.1013-25792.007
X-TM-AS-Result: No--1.610-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--1.610-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.1013-25792.007
X-TMASE-Result: 10--1.609700-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: JZjFDHxcg5Aaf3p8Lo2levVY7U3NX8JgUb4EdIZGxuCGGZ1p5qMgEToV gTsn53+1qMX5RCTyaUJJPQ34bti/Gg8WClMFvtnoGUlF/M3Dxp8pWss5kPUFdBw0HKhKjTfp2lK WGs+cf/Hi8zVgXoAltlwtzewu2M63uy1BaU5PT31TqzaeVVOfNfoLR4+zsDTtjoczmuoPCq1BoI 7zTCtTR4L6eNLlTv4v5HicFQWVlysV0FfxmxB5PndG0wnynaWI5D9smqVBD9yilnnVDECPd/H7A vsTxZMb7DafdH0+BI6wFMlIPaIBbQ==
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/JAomfe79JINhHE_eneSRaipARgI>
Subject: [Teas] Describing the network slicing interfaces and models
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: Mon, 16 Nov 2020 10:42:16 -0000

Luis,

Thanks for your words on this in today's meeting.

The RFC I mentioned is RFC 8309. This provides terminology for
models/interfaces at different levels in the functional model.

I think it would be helpful either to provide a mapping of your work to
8309, or to use the same terminology as 8309. This would help give a common
understanding across the IETF.

Thanks,
Adrian