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

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

I am not understanding your concern Wubo.  Apologies.
Please allow me to explain where it seems I am missing, and maybe you 
can clarify.

We refer to the construct in teh draft as a slice flow aggregate so as 
to emphasis and remind all readers that this component can carry 
multiple external slices.

Having said that, as a deployment option, it is always possible for an 
operator to use one slice flow aggregate for each external network slice 
(of whatever kind).  While I am concerned about the scaling of such an 
approach, it is clearly permitted and supported by the approach describe 
in the draft.

Yours,
Joel

On 2/23/2022 9:02 PM, Wubo (lana) wrote:
> Hi Pavan,
> 
> Thanks for your reply. Please see inline for my further comments.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bo
> 
> *发件人:*Vishnu Pavan Beeram [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *发送时间:*2022年2月23日22:29
> *收件人:*Wubo (lana) <[e-mail]>
> *抄送:*Lou Berger <[e-mail]>; TEAS WG <[e-mail]>; TEAS WG 
> Chairs <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> *主题:*Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet-08
> 
> Bo,
> 
> Please see inline for responses (prefixed VPB)..
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -Pavan (on behalf of the authors)
> 
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 6:39 AM Wubo (lana) 
> <lana.wubo=[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi all,
> 
>     I have read the draft and have some questions with the text and terms.
> 
>     1. This document seems only define SFA (slice-flow aggregation)
>     based mapping solution, that is, slice services mapping to SFAs, and
>     SFAs to NRP(Network Resource Partition)s.
>     If this draft is supposed to be a generic slicing realization
>     document, I think, it should allow more options. For example, the
>     slice services could be mapped to VPNs, and
>     VPNs mapped to underlying resources with method described in
>     draft-ietf-teas-te-service-mapping-yang.
> 
> [VPB] Please refer to section 5.3 
> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet-08#section-5.3 
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet-08*section-5.3__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!RKgzM9K5I6Crs9-9OkxWcIvs0atMYM1O1zZWrRa009HkrnmqRqcVdrJg4EU6Aib-$>). 
> It does note that the usual techniques for steering service traffic onto 
> paths are applicable -- the example that you cite is certainly 
> allowed. We can add a reference to 
> draft-ietf-teas-te-service-mapping-yang in this section and make it 
> explicit.
> 
> */[Bo Wu] Thanks for the clarification, but my concerns are not just 
> about Section 5.3. Taking Section 3.3 as an example,  Slice-Flow 
> Aggregation Mapping, there are also multiple sections titled with SFA. I 
> hope that the name can be changed to  "slice service mapping”  or “slice 
> service flow mapping" and the options described in section 5.3 can also 
> be reflected in those sections. Otherwise, as Med suggested, maybe the 
> draft name could be changed to “Realizing Network Slices in IP/MPLS 
> Networks supporting SFA”./*
> 
> 
>     2. This draft refers to draft-bestbar-teas-yang-slice-policy, but
>     the following definition are not consistent:
>     1) SFA is not defined in draft-bestbar-teas-yang-slice-policy, but
>     is seems relevant from the definition. And I can't find NRP Policy
>     selection Criteria in the model definition.
>     Slice-Flow Aggregate: a collection of packets that match an NRP
>     Policy selection criteria and are given the same forwarding treatment ;
> 
>     2) draft-bestbar-teas-yang-slice-policy defines Slice Selector, but
>     apart from Slice Selector, this draft also defines FAS and FASL. It
>     is recommended that the terms be consistent.
>     FAS: Flow Aggregate Selector; FASL: Flow Aggregate Selector Label.
> 
> [VPB] The last two comments above are for the NRP policy data model 
> draft (Thanks for bringing it up!). We agree that the NRP policy data 
> model draft needs to be updated to be in sync with the current 
> terminology used in draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet. This should get done 
> in the next few days. But please note that the NRP policy data model 
> draft is not the one that is currently being polled for adoption.
> 
> */[Bo Wu] I'm sorry my question is not clear. Let me rephrase it. As 
> described in the document, the SFA is maintained by the controller, 
> which means that the data plane within the device is not SFA aware. Then 
> could you explain the reason of defining  FAS and FASL? And what are the 
> differences between them and Network Resource Partition Data Plane 
> Selector? /*
> 
> 
>     Thanks,
>     Bo
>     > -----邮件原件-----
>     > 发件人: Teas [mailto:[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>] 代表Lou Berger
>     > 发送时间: 2022年2月18日21:28
>     > 收件人: TEAS WG <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     > 抄送: TEAS WG Chairs <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>;
>     > [e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     > 主题: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet-08
>     > 
>     > Hello,
>     > 
>     > This email begins a 2-week adoption poll for:
>     > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet/
>     <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet/>
>     > 
>     > Please note that IPR has been disclosed on this document:
>     > https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-bestbar-teas-n
>     <https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-bestbar-teas-n>
>     > s-packet
>     > 
>     > Please voice your support or objections to adoption on the list by the end of the
>     > day (any time zone) March 4.
>     > 
>     > Thank you,
>     > Lou (as Co-chair)
>     > 
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > Teas mailing list
>     > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Teas mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas