Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-contreras-teas-slice-nbi-06
Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Tue, 05 July 2022 10:15 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 47911C15CF2B; Tue, 5 Jul 2022 03:15:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.903
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] 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 Vg4ZljJ4QohS; Tue, 5 Jul 2022 03:15:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta7.iomartmail.com (mta7.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.157]) (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 2DF6BC15C15C; Tue, 5 Jul 2022 03:15:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vs4.iomartmail.com (vs4.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.122]) by mta7.iomartmail.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 265AFLSi026555; Tue, 5 Jul 2022 11:15:21 +0100
Received: from vs4.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4C6846050; Tue, 5 Jul 2022 11:15:20 +0100 (BST)
Received: from vs4.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0C674604C; Tue, 5 Jul 2022 11:15:20 +0100 (BST)
Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.249]) by vs4.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 5 Jul 2022 11:15:20 +0100 (BST)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V (93.197.bbplus.pte-ag1.dyn.plus.net [81.174.197.93] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 265AFJet013890 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 5 Jul 2022 11:15:20 +0100
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com, 'Vishnu Pavan Beeram' <vishnupavan@gmail.com>, 'TEAS WG' <teas@ietf.org>
Cc: 'TEAS WG Chairs' <teas-chairs@ietf.org>
References: <CA+YzgTs4Z5eEKQfWs19chLxq1bHN0oiRDPfkqWJROsUrNXFnWw@mail.gmail.com> <02ae01d88e6c$003d0200$00b70600$@olddog.co.uk> <14414_1657013372_62C4047C_14414_18_30_f2df4840030942c19ddec193900e1387@orange.com>
In-Reply-To: <14414_1657013372_62C4047C_14414_18_30_f2df4840030942c19ddec193900e1387@orange.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2022 11:15:19 +0100
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <04e701d89058$21be21a0$653a64e0$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_04E8_01D89060.83834CF0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQIPgl1IfzhnbIOfA7nB0cCPfKDP/ALKUxnYAfHHO0Ss28oYsA==
Content-Language: en-gb
X-Originating-IP: 81.174.197.93
X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.1.0.2090-9.0.0.1002-26996.006
X-TM-AS-Result: No--39.363-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--39.363-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.1.0.2090-9.0.1002-26996.006
X-TMASE-Result: 10--39.363000-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: jFqw+1pFnMzxIbpQ8BhdbI61Z+HJnvsONUSduuqYHDvICMF8PHDOJX+9 /60dLoZeuRqCCBRz7v+xFAEjAslZgw+jsxZzDqP1DZs/KgmqdksZskwWqoib3MkQUSuA3gSPhEz I3+mkzicvcgUibwrcmjcIFFpSt9CPjaxZjYCZ9l1+7Kf/40Ni0mgU1o1xV13f5yEcDTjPPfNOAA kc2H6Wj6ZWIrTRb6JSev6x44ztoHXOrVNaM4+O1yIuZ/6CFMb/CCo+lsDuynWFjNpoL7T7kF3dW fnPA435To+EXcjkc0w00TzYcY10BLFN/hL+YssDUXJ6rR5KIRDpodzJ2ZJAj5uYnGIJREnnIUHb ivqYqfxLaL7LqPGrKwa4MIM7ZBkhSTcpDg2ZULUdCSpsCqeSYyiisLSFmwm2zFIDdxc5TOm2Dbg 6gT630Aiuua4u0myO40BGRYbfMruMavnO6JPQ3omRHz8dd+BxAajW+EL+laMXfsbcR/BbMVFlcg ywz9r54PkIhwvBc3p5SvTw5gBL7PuTB8mJF8HKE7sLdRVaGmffVqwz+CynaalVRHRK9i1K9Tvad hXG9g3gPqVbzYllURI1hOrFCZ+z/7PvFa8I/I9WHMZ0gUy05VGk5uRH0MzCR6RHdVK85hX9EYpb fXjc9I0DuTXUKKLrZkBg3AahAPXTa45pAKmZrQrcxrzwsv5uuKAG4OMlyf+OHxbnkniIp3XqhK5 FYYDpEltmTBYDkdgIek19m81B5uRZms8DIpYPGUubsVz8TekFoTFl6ollsjdHHXXKh5RCHN6L1e ChrlH2Q0aTRV9b7G5zP/FSQ4TNpMIZ8W4NbfmeAiCmPx4NwGmRqNBHmBve1B0Hk1Q1KyI9euiYe 3o8eEprfkiB9+n/4kYXbobxJbLyU/oX+tpNmCG2Ull2Wedt
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/Oo6yYKsWDZURx120YG1tJMwS0VA>
Subject: Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-contreras-teas-slice-nbi-06
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: Tue, 05 Jul 2022 10:15:27 -0000
That’s a reasonable argument, Med. Thanks. Might be nice to include a statement of intent in the Abstract/Introduction along the lines of “This document is intended to provide motivation and support for work on YANG models for the IETF Network Slice Service interface. As such, it might not be necessary to advance it to publication as an RFC.” Cheers, Adrian From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Sent: 05 July 2022 10:30 To: adrian@olddog.co.uk; 'Vishnu Pavan Beeram' <vishnupavan@gmail.com>; 'TEAS WG' <teas@ietf.org> Cc: 'TEAS WG Chairs' <teas-chairs@ietf.org> Subject: RE: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-contreras-teas-slice-nbi-06 Hi Adrian, all, (focusing on this specific comment below) As you known, adopting does not mean that the document will make it to the RFC stage. IMO, this document is a good ** support document **. As such, it falls under https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/support-documents/ and the WG may decide to let it expire when it serves its purposes or not. The merit I see in formally adopting is to have a WG reference to assess the slice service model against a set of cases and capture consensus about any missing attributes that need to be reflected in the service model itself. Cheers, Med De : Teas <teas-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:teas-bounces@ietf.org> > De la part de Adrian Farrel Envoyé : dimanche 3 juillet 2022 01:33 À : 'Vishnu Pavan Beeram' <vishnupavan@gmail.com <mailto:vishnupavan@gmail.com> >; 'TEAS WG' <teas@ietf.org <mailto:teas@ietf.org> > Cc : 'TEAS WG Chairs' <teas-chairs@ietf.org <mailto:teas-chairs@ietf.org> > Objet : Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-contreras-teas-slice-nbi-06 Hi, (Not late with this review!) I only have one question about supporting the adoption of this document and that is to wonder whether the work is overtaken by events. We already have work progressing developing and specifying the IETF Network Slice Service Interface YANG model in draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network- slice-nbi-yang. That YANG model is surely based on discussions that arise from this work, and I am not doubting the value of those discussions. But I don't quite understand why we need to pursue this I-D towards an RFC when it's principal purpose is surely to shape the content of the YANG model. Have I missed the purpose of this draft? _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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] WG adoption poll: draft-contreras-teas-sli… Vishnu Pavan Beeram
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-contreras-teas… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-contreras-teas… Joel Halpern
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-contreras-teas… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-contreras-teas… LUIS MIGUEL CONTRERAS MURILLO
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-contreras-teas… Shunsuke Homma
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-contreras-teas… Dongjie (Jimmy)
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-contreras-teas… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-contreras-teas… Wubo (lana)
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-contreras-teas… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-contreras-teas… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-contreras-teas… Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-contreras-teas… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-contreras-teas… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-contreras-teas… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-contreras-teas… LUIS MIGUEL CONTRERAS MURILLO
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-contreras-teas… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-contreras-teas… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-contreras-teas… Dhruv Dhody
- Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-contreras-teas… Vishnu Pavan Beeram