[Teas] Re: Comments Regarding the Proposed Merge of draft-barguil-teas-network-slices-instantation

[Vishnu Pavan Beeram <[e-mail]>]

@Samier -- Thanks for sharing your comments.



WG,



In the last TEAS WG session, we discussed merging
draft-barguil-teas-network-slices-instantation with the WG adopted
draft-ietf-teas-ns-controller-models (please see relevant meeting minutes –
[1]). In continuation of this discussion, Samier has emphasized the
authors’ desire to not do the merge and articulated the reasons behind it.



Before we (the chairs) take a call on the next steps for this document, we
would like to check if anyone else has comments on this.



Regards,

-Pavan and Oscar



[1]
https://notes.ietf.org/notes-ietf-120-teas#08-1040--10-min--Title-Applicability-of-IETF-Defined-Service-and-Network-Data-Models-for-Network-Slice-Service-Management



On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 7:44 PM Samier Barguil Giraldo (Nokia)
<samier.barguil_giraldo=[e-mail]> wrote:

> Dear TEAS WG,
>
>
>
> I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to share my comments
> regarding the recent proposal to merge our draft,
> *draft-barguil-teas-network-slices-instantation*, with
> *draft-ietf-teas-ns-controller-models*. While I appreciate the intent
> behind the proposal, I would like to highlight several reasons why merging
> these two drafts may not be helping achieve intended objectives, and to
> emphasize the unique value our draft provides.
>
>
>
> *Why Merging Is Not Beneficial*
>
>
>
>    1. *Different Scope and Focus*: Our draft,
>    *draft-barguil-teas-network-slices-instantation*, has been under
>    development since 2021 and provides detailed guidance on the implementation
>    of a Network Slices in service provider networks. The core focus of our
>    draft is to analyze the practical impact of network slice instantiation on
>    the realization of services and the mapping of slice constraints to service
>    and network models. It goes parameter by parameter, examining how these
>    parameters influence slice implementation and providing options for
>    translating the intended slice requests into operational services. In
>    contrast, *draft-ietf-teas-ns-controller-models* is a newer draft that
>    describes a high-level functional division of the NSC and references data
>    models for supporting network slice services. While it is a promising
>    document, it is more abstract and primarily aimed at outlining the
>    potential architecture of the NSC rather than the detailed implementation
>    and realization aspects that our draft covers.
>    2. *Depth of Analysis in Model Usage*: One of the strengths of our
>    draft is the detailed examination of how service and network models are
>    used to ensure that slice constraints are met. We explore multiple mapping
>    options for various parameters, providing granular insights that are
>    crucial for the practical implementation of network slices. This level of
>    depth would be difficult to preserve in a merged document without
>    compromising the unique contributions and utility of each draft.
>
>
>
> *The Value Provided by draft-barguil-teas-network-slices-instantiation*
>
>
>
>    - *Practical Implementation Guidance*: Our draft offers concrete
>    guidance on how service providers can implement NSCs, focusing on how the
>    intended slice requests are translated into service and network models.
>    This is particularly valuable for operators who need actionable insights
>    into how to deploy slices in their networks, considering real-world
>    constraints and challenges.
>    - *Detailed Parameter-by-Parameter Mapping*: We delve into the
>    specific parameters of network slice requests and provide analysis on how
>    these can be mapped to the underlying network infrastructure. This granular
>    level of analysis is essential for ensuring that the network slice
>    constraints are met in practice.
>    - *Impact on Service Realization*: By closely examining how different
>    models interact during network slice instantiation, our draft helps
>    operators understand the potential impact on service realization, which is
>    a critical aspect of network slicing.
>
>
>
> In summary, while both drafts contribute to the broader discussion of
> network slice controllers, they serve different purposes and target
> different layers of abstraction. Merging them could dilute the unique value
> that each draft provides.
>
> We believe that keeping the drafts separate will allow each to evolve in a
> way that best serves the needs of the working group and the broader
> community.
>
>
>
> I appreciate your time and consideration of these points, and I look
> forward to further discussions on how we can continue to refine and improve
> our contributions to the TEAS WG.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> *Samier Barguil*
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>