Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-contreras-teas-slice-nbi-06

[Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>]

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: [e-mail] <[e-mail]> 
Sent: 05 July 2022 10:30
To: [e-mail]; 'Vishnu Pavan Beeram' <[e-mail]>; 'TEAS WG' <[e-mail]>
Cc: 'TEAS WG Chairs' <[e-mail]>
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 <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> > De la part de Adrian Farrel
Envoyé : dimanche 3 juillet 2022 01:33
À : 'Vishnu Pavan Beeram' <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >; 'TEAS WG' <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Cc : 'TEAS WG Chairs' <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
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.