Re: [Teas] WG adoption - draft-nsdt-teas-transport-slice-definition - Appendix

[David Sinicrope <[e-mail]>]

Just saw Pavan and Lou’s summary and agree with that path forward.
Thanks,
Dave 

> On Aug 25, 2020, at 12:30, David Sinicrope <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> I agree the current term has no meaning, contradicts the main document concerning the use of dedicated resources and it should be removed from the document.  I’m sure it doesn’t need to be present in the document to continue debate and work on it and in the meantime we might get agreement on the rest of the text.
> 
> Dave
> 
>>> On Aug 22, 2020, at 15:24, BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>  Hi Luis,
>> 
>> Not sure if you are saying isolation or the appendix example “dedicated resources” needs to stay in the draft?
>> 
>> It is the appendix which I am saying needs to be removed as the term has no meaning. Can a dedicated resource be a TE link? It has defined properties e.g. bandwidth. It is an IETF term.
>> 
>> Isolation also needs to be better defined so we can understand the term - Can you find a reference - 3GPP? As I noted, ETSI references 3GPP, and dedicated resources is not a property of isolation. Does a TE link provide isolation?
>> 
>> Yes, this is just an adoption call, but if it defines isolation as dedicated resources, this document is more appropriately done in SG15 for a single layer “transport” technology network. We need to sort out definitions/examples appropriate for IETF technologies.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Deborah
>> (individual)
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> On Aug 22, 2020, at 2:13 PM, Luis M. Contreras <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi Deborah,
>>> 
>>> as you comment, there are different views from different SDOs on isolation. But we lack our own view in IETF. This is precisely the reason why we should include a preliminary definition on the definitions draft that could be further elaborated in the framework document or in any other.
>>> 
>>> For sure, text is (should be) reviewed up to the point of reaching certain consensus. In fact the current text was hardly debated, amended and discussed during the design team calls (one per week). Again, probably requires more views as the ones in this thread. I think this reflects, in fact, the importance of keeping it in the definition draft. 
>>> 
>>> Best regards
>>> 
>>> Luis
>>> 
>>>> El vie., 21 ago. 2020 a las 17:52, BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A (<[e-mail]>) escribió:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> (speaking as an individual)
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> While the document is in it’s early stages, I think it is important to sort out this use of the term “isolation”. Already by use of the term “transport”, the scope of this work may be confused with the traditional definition of a transport network and overlapping with ITU-T SG15’s transport technologies. Important is to define “transport” carefully for the IETF context, which I think this document is a good start. Mixing “isolation” with “dedicated resources” is a step back to the traditional definition.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> As the authors note, the term “isolation” is used in other SDOs, including 3GPP, but it is used differently. Here’s a recent publicly available white paper from ETSI NFV which summarizes the requirements from 3GPP for network slicing:
>>>> 
>>>> https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_gr/NFV-EVE/001_099/012/03.01.01_60/gr_NFV-EVE012v030101p.pdf
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> In this ETSI document, when they discuss isolation properties, physical resources are not mentioned, they discuss performance, resiliency, security, privacy and management. 3GPP recognizes resources may be logical or physical (and either fully or partly), it is not a “requirement”. Physical and virtual resources are used with respect to “realize”, not define.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> I agree with Joel and Dave, I think Appendix A’s example saying a customer will request “dedicated resources” and saying the solution of using dedicated resources (vs. VPN)  guarantees the requirements are met, clashes with the rest of the document (section 5.3 and section 6) which carefully defines resources not as defining a slice but for realizing a slice. Maybe the authors intended it to be an example, but it is too confusing in the context of this document to mix the definition of “isolation” with “dedicated resources”. While an Appendix, it should not clash with the main document. Best is to remove for now.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> 
>>>> Deborah
>>>> 
>>>> (individual)
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> From: Teas <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of David Sinicrope
>>>> Sent: Friday, August 21, 2020 9:11 AM
>>>> To: Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]>; Joel Halpern Direct <[e-mail]>; Kiran Makhijani <[e-mail]>; Vishnu Pavan Beeram <[e-mail]>; TEAS WG <[e-mail]>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Teas] WG adoption - draft-nsdt-teas-transport-slice-definition - Appendix
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Jie,
>>>> 
>>>> You note “isolation has been considered as one of the characteristics of network slicing in most of the related standards and publications, and it would be incomplete if the definition draft does not touch this. And in IETF history isolation has been considered as one requirement of VPNs, the discussion is necessary for explaining the relationship and difference between network slice and VPNs.”
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> I’m not sure where this is coming from. Do you have references to support these claims?  I’m specifically referring to the claim that “most” related standards and publications consider isolation as a characteristic.  This has not been my experience at all over the last 3 decades including the history of the IETF.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> If anything the history of work on VPNs deals with identification of the traffic associated with the VPN not its isolation. Any treatment or characteristic of that traffic has been a function of QoS.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Isolation, in my experience, has not been part of the discussion or texts until the introduction of network slicing and only introduced by a subset of the community.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> I agree the text on isolation is confusing and not needed.  I also ask that it be removed.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> 
>>>> Dave
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> From: Teas <[e-mail]> on behalf of Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]>
>>>> Sent: Friday, August 21, 2020 4:26 AM
>>>> To: Joel Halpern Direct; Kiran Makhijani; Vishnu Pavan Beeram; TEAS WG
>>>> Subject: Re: [Teas] WG adoption - draft-nsdt-teas-transport-slice-definition - Appendix
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Joel, 
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks for your clarification about the procedure. 
>>>> 
>>>> What I meant is to provide some background about the design team's discussion, which may help the WG to review and give comments on this draft. Of course the decision will be made by the WG. 
>>>> 
>>>> One of the reasons of keeping the isolation discussion in this draft is that isolation has been considered as one of the characteristics of network slicing in most of the related standards and publications, and it would be incomplete if the definition draft does not touch this. And in IETF history isolation has been considered as one requirement of VPNs, the discussion is necessary for explaining the relationship and difference between network slice and VPNs. Also note that in the last paragraph of the appendix, it tries to separate the requirements on isolation from several possible realization mechanism, which makes this description reasonably generic. 
>>>> 
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Jie
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>>> > From: Joel Halpern Direct [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>> > Sent: Friday, August 21, 2020 11:28 AM
>>>> > To: Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]>; Kiran Makhijani
>>>> > <[e-mail]>; Vishnu Pavan Beeram
>>>> > <[e-mail]>; TEAS WG <[e-mail]>
>>>> > Subject: Re: [Teas] WG adoption - draft-nsdt-teas-transport-slice-definition -
>>>> > Appendix
>>>> > 
>>>> > The consensus of the design team is relevant as a recommendation to the
>>>> > WG, but otherwise is not relevant for whether the WG should agree.  In
>>>> > terms of WG adoption, the design team draft has the same status as any
>>>> > other individual draft. The WG comes to its conclusion.
>>>> > 
>>>> > There is no obligation for the WG to retain the text from the appendix
>>>> > anywhere.  In particular, the WG is under no obligation to retain the last
>>>> > paragraph of teh appendix anywhere.
>>>> > 
>>>> > I have not seen any good argument for retaining the text.  It does not seem
>>>> > to add to or even fit with the purpose of the definitions draft.
>>>> > If anything, it is confusing at it seems to say "this is not a parameter / this is
>>>> > a parameter"
>>>> > 
>>>> > Yours,
>>>> > Joel
>>>> > 
>>>> > On 8/20/2020 11:17 PM, Dongjie (Jimmy) wrote:
>>>> > > Hi Joel,
>>>> > >
>>>> > > In the design team there were several rounds of discussion about the
>>>> > content in the appendix and where it should be placed. The current text in
>>>> > the appendix reflects the consensus of the design team, although some
>>>> > minor edits were not included yet.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > As for whether some of the text in appendix will be moved to the
>>>> > framework document, currently the design team has no specific opinion
>>>> > about this, and feedbacks from WG are appreciated. While as Kiran
>>>> > mentioned, description and discussion about isolation is needed in the NS-DT
>>>> > documents.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Best regards,
>>>> > > Jie
>>>> > >
>>>> > >> -----Original Message-----
>>>> > >> From: Teas [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Joel M.
>>>> > >> Halpern
>>>> > >> Sent: Friday, August 21, 2020 7:00 AM
>>>> > >> To: Kiran Makhijani <[e-mail]>; Vishnu Pavan Beeram
>>>> > >> <[e-mail]>; TEAS WG <[e-mail]>
>>>> > >> Subject: Re: [Teas] WG adoption -
>>>> > >> draft-nsdt-teas-transport-slice-definition - Appendix
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> Since I do not think that the material in the appendix is useful, I
>>>> > >> for one will not push for adding it to the Framework.  You are
>>>> > >> welcome to dabate adding it to the framework with the rest of the WG.
>>>> > >> But it does not belong in the definitions draft.
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> Yours,
>>>> > >> Joel
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> On 8/20/2020 5:20 PM, Kiran Makhijani wrote:
>>>> > >>> Hi Joel,
>>>> > >>> I am ok to remove some part from Appendix only if it is included in
>>>> > >>> the
>>>> > >> framework first.
>>>> > >>>
>>>> > >>> But for the TSRE, I have proposed clearer and shorter text that they
>>>> > >>> are not
>>>> > >> visible to the consumer of a transport slices. One of the purpose of
>>>> > >> definitions document is 'define' common terminology in the scope of
>>>> > >> transport slices, and all we are saying is that when realizing a
>>>> > >> transport slice, things TSEs will map to are called TSREs.
>>>> > >>> I am not able to see the drawback of saying so.
>>>> > >>>
>>>> > >>> Thanks
>>>> > >>> Kiran
>>>> > >>>
>>>> > >>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> > >>>> From: Joel Halpern Direct <[e-mail]>
>>>> > >>>> Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2020 1:19 PM
>>>> > >>>> To: Kiran Makhijani <[e-mail]>; Vishnu Pavan Beeram
>>>> > >>>> <[e-mail]>; TEAS WG <[e-mail]>
>>>> > >>>> Subject: Re: [Teas] WG adoption -
>>>> > >>>> draft-nsdt-teas-transport-slice-definition
>>>> > >>>>
>>>> > >>>> No, your replies did not in any way address my concerns.
>>>> > >>>>
>>>> > >>>> I would suggest removing the references to TSRE and more
>>>> > >>>> importantly removing appendix A.1, or at least the last part of the
>>>> > appendix.
>>>> > >>>>
>>>> > >>>> Yours,
>>>> > >>>> Joel
>>>> > >>>>
>>>> > >>>> On 8/20/2020 2:54 PM, Kiran Makhijani wrote:
>>>> > >>>>> Hi Joel,
>>>> > >>>>> After having replied to your comments, we have not heard further
>>>> > >>>>> if they
>>>> > >>>> were convincing.
>>>> > >>>>> Please let us know.
>>>> > >>>>> Thanks
>>>> > >>>>> Kiran
>>>> > >>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> > >>>>>> From: Teas <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern
>>>> > >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 9:04 AM
>>>> > >>>>>> To: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail..com>; TEAS WG
>>>> > >>>>>> <[e-mail]>
>>>> > >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Teas] WG adoption -
>>>> > >>>>>> draft-nsdt-teas-transport-slice-definition
>>>> > >>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>> Without repairs to the issues I have raised on the email list, I
>>>> > >>>>>> do not think this document should be adopted as a WG document.
>>>> > >>>>>> We are close, but not quite there.
>>>> > >>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>> Yours,
>>>> > >>>>>> Joel
>>>> > >>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>> On 8/19/2020 11:50 AM, Vishnu Pavan Beeram wrote:
>>>> > >>>>>>> All,
>>>> > >>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>> This is start of a *three* week poll on making
>>>> > >>>>>>> draft-nsdt-teas-transport-slice-definition-03 a TEAS working
>>>> > >>>>>>> group
>>>> > >>>>>> document.
>>>> > >>>>>>> Please send email to the list indicating "yes/support" or "no/do
>>>> > >>>>>>> not support". If indicating no, please state your reservations
>>>> > >>>>>>> with the document. If yes, please also feel free to provide
>>>> > >>>>>>> comments you'd like to see addressed once the document is a WG
>>>> > >> document.
>>>> > >>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>> The poll ends September 9th (extra week to account for vacation
>>>> > >> season).
>>>> > >>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>> > >>>>>>> Pavan and Lou
>>>> > >>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> > >>>>>>> Teas mailing list
>>>> > >>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> > >>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>
>>>> > >>
>>>> > https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=7d132922-23b3ea8b-7d1369b9-86959e472243-a669baec95ff5981&q=1&e=8a1db88d-cb42-478e-8eb8-da70acca25e3&u=https%3A%2F%2Fnam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com%2F%3Furl%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fww
>>>> > w.
>>>> > >>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>
>>>> > >>
>>>> > ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fteas&amp;data=02%7C01%7Ckiranm%40
>>>> > f
>>>> > >>>>>> utur
>>>> > >>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>
>>>> > >>
>>>> > ewei.com%7Cf26ab959470747a36b2808d84459a351%7C0fee8ff2a3b24018
>>>> > 9
>>>> > >>>>>> c753a1d
>>>> > >>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>
>>>> > >>
>>>> > 5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637334499094612048&amp;sdata=%2FGSlz2Q4%
>>>> > 2B
>>>> > >>>>>> RAlZTXBv5
>>>> > >>>>>>> XlCZ9YKaUKQ7C4IUIgdQDVJ%2Bk%3D&amp;reserved=0
>>>> > >>>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> > >>>>>> Teas mailing list
>>>> > >>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> > >>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>
>>>> > >>
>>>> > https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=19c50183-4765c22a-19c54118-86959e472243-be7fb3e456e3f9a6&q=1&e=8a1db88d-cb42-478e-8eb8-da70acca25e3&u=https%3A%2F%2Fnam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com%2F%3Furl%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fww
>>>> > w
>>>> > >>>>>> .i
>>>> > >>>>
>>>> > >>
>>>> > etf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fteas&amp;data=02%7C01%7Ckiranm%40f
>>>> > u
>>>> > >>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>
>>>> > >>
>>>> > turewei.com%7Cf26ab959470747a36b2808d84459a351%7C0fee8ff2a3b24
>>>> > 01
>>>> > >>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>
>>>> > >>
>>>> > 89c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637334499094612048&amp;sdata=%2F
>>>> > G
>>>> > >>>>>>
>>>> > >>>>
>>>> > >>
>>>> > Slz2Q4%2BRAlZTXBv5XlCZ9YKaUKQ7C4IUIgdQDVJ%2Bk%3D&amp;reserved=
>>>> > 0
>>>> > >>>>>
>>>> > >>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> > >>>>> Teas mailing list
>>>> > >>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> > >>>>>
>>>> > >>>>
>>>> > >>
>>>> > https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=d37b5edd-8ddb9d74-d37b1e46-86959e472243-a54dacfae536c914&q=1&e=8a1db88d-cb42-478e-8eb8-da70acca25e3&u=https%3A%2F%2Fnam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com%2F%3Furl%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fww
>>>> > w.
>>>> > >>>>>
>>>> > >>>>
>>>> > >>
>>>> > ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fteas&amp;data=02%7C01%7Ckiranm%40
>>>> > f
>>>> > >>>> utur
>>>> > >>>>>
>>>> > >>>>
>>>> > >>
>>>> > ewei.com%7C7bb861e35ac84653b62208d8454659ac%7C0fee8ff2a3b24018
>>>> > 9
>>>> > >>>> c753a1d
>>>> > >>>>>
>>>> > >>>>
>>>> > >>
>>>> > 5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C637335515772670726&amp;sdata=MZQKraVa8fj3
>>>> > BL
>>>> > >>>> sLRq9T9a
>>>> > >>>>> Ypp3C%2Bu1w9c7DgIVE6kE0%3D&amp;reserved=0
>>>> > >>>>>
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> _______________________________________________
>>>> > >> Teas mailing list
>>>> > >> [e-mail]
>>>> > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Teas mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Teas mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> ___________________________________________
>>> Luis M. Contreras
>>> [e-mail] 
>>> [e-mail]
>>> Global CTIO unit / Telefonica
>> _______________________________________________
>> Teas mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas