Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet-08

[Daniele Ceccarelli <[e-mail]>]

Hi Med,

If nothing new is defined and just existing tools are re-used I agree with you, but any addition that requires a different behavior in a node, like parsing differently the label stack or adding a new field to a packet requires a standard track.

Cheers
Daniele

From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Sent: den 4 mars 2022 16:00
To: Daniele Ceccarelli <[e-mail]>; Vishnu Pavan Beeram <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; Tarek Saad <[e-mail]>; Lou Berger <[e-mail]>; TEAS WG <[e-mail]>; TEAS WG Chairs <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet-08

Hi Daniele,

I don’t think that an IETF document can mandate how a network can implement a slice.

We can of course document approaches that are likely to be implemented. We can hint some preference, e.g., leverage existing solutions with very minor changes. But all that is still informational in nature.

Cheers,
Med

De : Daniele Ceccarelli <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Envoyé : vendredi 4 mars 2022 15:34
À : Vishnu Pavan Beeram <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc : [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Tarek Saad <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Lou Berger <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; TEAS WG <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; TEAS WG Chairs <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Objet : RE: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet-08

Hi Med, Pavan,

Provided that I share concerns about the number of IPRs, I don’t think that the draft as is today can be considered informational.
Probably some work might be done to turn it into informational but the real question, do we want yet another informational draft or do we want one documents that says: “if you want to do network slicing in packet technologies, this is what you MUST do” ? it doesn’t have to be THE only solution but is should be one of the FEW solutions.

Cheers,
Daniele

From: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: den 4 mars 2022 10:16
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; Tarek Saad <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Lou Berger <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; TEAS WG <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; TEAS WG Chairs <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet-08

Med, Hi!

>> The more I read draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packe, the more I’m convinced that it should not be in Standards Track, but Informational.

We (authors) would be okay with whatever the WG consensus is on this.

Regards,
-Pavan

On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 7:32 AM <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi all,

Focusing on this important point which should BTW be linked to the IPR point raised in one of my reviews + Adrian’s review.

Other approaches that do not require major changes were already called out in this thread. I hope a balanced approach will be adopted to discuss/document them.

The more I read draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packe, the more I’m convinced that it should not be in Standards Track, but Informational.

Cheers,
Med

De : Teas <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> De la part de Adrian Farrel
Envoyé : mercredi 2 mars 2022 12:23
À : 'Tarek Saad' <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; 'Lou Berger' <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; 'TEAS WG' <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc : 'TEAS WG Chairs' <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Objet : Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet-08


[snip]

[AF] OK. Well, I think this document is showing that a lot of changes are needed in the network to support slicing in the form you envisage. I find that disappointing and think it would be nice to be able to support slicing on top of today’s packet networks with minimal changes. Did anyone think about how to do that?


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



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

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



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.