Re: [Teas] WG adoption - draft-nsdt-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition Mon, 18 January 2021 02:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C8043A0C7D for <>; Sun, 17 Jan 2021 18:56:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.656
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.656 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_NONELEMENT_30_40=0.001, HTML_OBFUSCATE_05_10=0.26, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Hl2BO0FH8USB for <>; Sun, 17 Jan 2021 18:56:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E57423A0C82 for <>; Sun, 17 Jan 2021 18:56:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown []) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id B5CC57E842D2833502F6; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 10:55:58 +0800 (CST)
Received: from ([]) by with SMTP id 10I2tk3J048215; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 10:55:46 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from
Received: from mapi (njxapp05[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid201; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 10:55:46 +0800 (CST)
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2021 10:55:46 +0800 (CST)
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afd6004f8b20d0f4bfd
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: <>
To: <>
Cc: <>, <>, <>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: 10I2tk3J048215
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Teas] =?utf-8?q?WG_adoption_-_draft-nsdt-teas-ietf-network-slic?= =?utf-8?q?e-definition?=
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2021 02:56:05 -0000

Hi Reza,

Thank you for your reply.

One scenario may be that the network controller received the path computation request from the headend, and because the constraints are too strict, the network controller may create the corresponding slice independently, and then report the created slice to the NSC. Or, the network controller can also request NSC for a slice. Isn't that possible?




抄送人:Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa);
日 期 :2021年01月15日 11:26
主 题 :Re: [Teas] WG adoption - draft-nsdt-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition

Teas mailing list




If such a use-cases exist (I am not aware of any use-cases), the current draft address them. As Joel mentioned, if (for some use-cases) the network decides to create a new “IETF network slice” between various endpoints, this request will be find its way to the NBI of “IETF Network Slice Controller” (NSC) and whatever mentioned in draft is still valid. How this request gets to the NSC NBI is out-of-scope of the draft. Any method can be use.


IMO, such a request from network should not go from NSC SBI to NBI. It is not correct. The only information travel from SBI to NBI should be related to “IETF network slice” assurance (i.e. monitoring data from the network).








From: Teas <> on behalf of "" <>
 Date: Thursday, January 14, 2021 at 10:06 PM
 To: "" <>
 Cc: "" <>
 Subject: Re: [Teas] WG adoption - draft-nsdt-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition



Hi Joel,


Thanks for your attention.

Here, as the direction of the request is from south to north, do you think whether the definition document need to describe this case ?

If so, the request would be very different with that is discribed in the current document. In detailed, it is sent through technology-specific interface between headend and network controller, then the network contoller may continue to request a slice from NSC, or report the created slice to NSC through technology-specific interface.









日 期 :2021年01月15日 10:18

主 题 :Re: [Teas] WG adoption - draft-nsdt-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition

Given that station in the case below is making a request, isn't it 
 reasonable to assume that the request makes its way to the control 
 systems, which then handle the itneraction with the underlay network 
 through the mechanisms proposed in the definitions and framework drafts?
 On 1/14/2021 9:08 PM, wrote:
 > A little comment:
 > It seems that the definition document only support that the realization 
 > of IETF network slice is triggered by the consumer through the interface 
 > to NSC with specific SLO. I think it is not enough. Please see if it is 
 > needed to support the case for a network device (the headend) to 
 > explicitly request a slice on demand, and request a connection path 
 > within the specific slice on demand.
 > Regards,
 > PSF
 > 原始邮件
 > *发件人:*VishnuPavanBeeram
 > *收件人:*TEAS WG;
 > *抄送人:*TEAS WG Chairs;
 > *日 期 :*2021年01月04日 22:02
 > *主 题 :**[Teas] WG adoption - 
 > draft-nsdt-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition*
 > _______________________________________________
 > Teas mailing list
 > All,
 > This is start of a two week poll on making
 > draft-nsdt-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition-02 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 January 18th.
 > Thanks,
 > Pavan and Lou
 > _______________________________________________
 > Teas mailing list
 Teas mailing list