Re: [Teas] New Version Notification for draft-nsdt-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition-00.txt

[Kiran Makhijani <[e-mail]>]

Hi Med,
Many thanks for reviewing the updated text. 

Let ask naïve questions on (1) Can you explain what's misleading? and " **specific** to slicing vs generic ones."?  How do you see CPP/7297 relates to IETF network slices?

On (2) and (3): Terminology document is motivated to establish minimal common understanding independently - upon which further work can progress, as well as previous efforts can relate to. 

With that in mind, there are 2 ways to tie down RFC7297 -  we have applicability section in framework and appropriate text on how CPP applies can go there. Another option is to establish CPP relationship briefly with SLOs in section  4.1.1 to slices with a reference to 7297. In both cases we need your help to provide the right text. 

But that's secondary. Lets first cover (1).
-Kiran


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2020 4:41 AM
> To: Kiran Makhijani <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; TEAS WG
> <[e-mail]>
> Subject: RE: New Version Notification for draft-nsdt-teas-ietf-network-slice-
> definition-00.txt
> 
> Hi Kiran, all,
> 
> Thank you for sharing this updated version.
> 
> (1)
> 
> It seems that the scope is still connectivity:
> 
>    An IETF Network Slice is a well-defined structure of connectivity
>    requirements and associated network behaviors.  IETF Network Slices
>    are defined such that they are independent of the underlying
>    infrastructure connectivity and technologies used.  This is to allow
>    an IETF Network Slice consumer to describe their network connectivity
>    and relevant objectives in a common format, independent of the
>    underlying technologies used.
> 
> Which is fine by me but the use of "network slice" is misleading.
> 
> (2)
> 
> I already made this comment during the call for adoption, but I don't see it
> addressed in this version: It would be really cool if we can identify attributes
> that are **specific** to slicing vs generic ones. I'm particularly referring to the
> CPP defined in RFC7297:
> 
> ====
>    3.  Connectivity Provisioning Profile (CPP)
>      3.1.  Customer Nodes Map
>      3.2.  Scope
>      3.3.  QoS Guarantees
>      3.4.  Availability
>      3.5.  Capacity
>      3.6.  Conformance Traffic
>      3.7.  Overall Traffic Guarantees
>      3.8.  Traffic Isolation
>      3.9.  Flow Identification
>      3.10. Routing and Forwarding
>      3.11. Activation Means
>      3.12. Invocation Means
>      3.13. Notifications
> ====
> 
> (3)
> 
> Both clarifications are important to be worked out for the following reasons:
> * If the "IETF Network slice" is more than connectivity, then its connectivity
> component does not need to signal explicitly this is about a "slice" because its
> presence in the "IETF Network slice" is sufficient to infer that.
> 
> * If there are no connectivity-related attributes that are specific to slicing, then
> we need to factorize and use a generic modelling for the connectivity
> component. For example, an ABNF inspired from RFC7297 would look like:
> 
>    <NETWORK_SLICE> ::=
>                  <Some_Non_Connectivity_Component> ...
>                  <Connectivity Provisioning Component> ...
>    <Connectivity Provisioning Component> ::=
>                               <CONNECTIVITY_PROVISIONING_PROFILE> ...
>    <CONNECTIVITY_PROVISIONING_PROFILE> ::=
>                               <Customer Nodes Map>
>                               <Scope>
>                               <QoS Guarantees>
>                               <Availability>
>                               <Capacity>
>                               <Traffic Isolation>
>                               <Conformance Traffic>
>                               <Flow Identification>
>                               <Overall Traffic Guarantees>
>                               <Routing and Forwarding>
>                               <Activation Means>
>                               <Invocation Means>
>                               <Notifications>
>                               <Optional Information Element> ...
> 
> Cheers,
> Med
> 
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De : Teas [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de Kiran Makhijani
> > Envoyé : jeudi 22 octobre 2020 08:12 À : [e-mail]; TEAS WG
> > <[e-mail]> Objet : [Teas] FW: New Version Notification for
> > draft-nsdt-teas- ietf-network-slice-definition-00.txt
> >
> > Hello Teas and teas-ns-dt,
> > FYI: Please find new version of  IETF network slices (previously
> > called transport slices) definition document.
> >
> > This is still a work in progress document but several comments and
> > feedback received till now have been addressed. We want to share
> > updates so far and look forward to further comments and discussion.
> >
> > Thanks
> > -Authors
> >
> 
> ___________________________________________________________________
> ______________________________________________________
> 
> 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.