Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet-08

"Wubo (lana)" <lana.wubo@huawei.com> Thu, 24 February 2022 02:03 UTC

Return-Path: <lana.wubo@huawei.com>
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 7EE553A0C25; Wed, 23 Feb 2022 18:03:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.795
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.795 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o4BryG9rTKYY; Wed, 23 Feb 2022 18:03:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F4223A12C5; Wed, 23 Feb 2022 18:02:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fraeml710-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.226]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4K3x3c0y9Rz67gtM; Thu, 24 Feb 2022 10:01:48 +0800 (CST)
Received: from dggeme752-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.98) by fraeml710-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.59) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256) id 15.1.2308.21; Thu, 24 Feb 2022 03:02:51 +0100
Received: from dggeme752-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.98) by dggeme752-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.98) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2308.21; Thu, 24 Feb 2022 10:02:49 +0800
Received: from dggeme752-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.6.80.76]) by dggeme752-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.6.80.76]) with mapi id 15.01.2308.021; Thu, 24 Feb 2022 10:02:49 +0800
From: "Wubo (lana)" <lana.wubo@huawei.com>
To: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com>
CC: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>, TEAS WG Chairs <teas-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet@ietf.org" <draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet-08
Thread-Index: AdgpG/fNzpQ4aA1ZRmqGwz8PIPx/GQ==
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2022 02:02:49 +0000
Message-ID: <8f363bb66a0a47d3b6dd278c236e04dc@huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.136.98.73]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_8f363bb66a0a47d3b6dd278c236e04dchuaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/ToElKzWtKunCyYKAt83RM9W2tVE>
Subject: Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet-08
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 24 Feb 2022 02:03:07 -0000

Hi Pavan,

Thanks for your reply. Please see inline for my further comments.

Thanks,
Bo

发件人: Vishnu Pavan Beeram [mailto:vishnupavan@gmail.com]
发送时间: 2022年2月23日 22:29
收件人: Wubo (lana) <lana.wubo@huawei.com>
抄送: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>; TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>; TEAS WG Chairs <teas-chairs@ietf.org>; draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet@ietf.org
主题: Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet-08

Bo,

Please see inline for responses (prefixed VPB)..

Regards,
-Pavan (on behalf of the authors)

On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 6:39 AM Wubo (lana) <lana.wubo=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote:
Hi all,

I have read the draft and have some questions with the text and terms.

1. This document seems only define SFA (slice-flow aggregation) based mapping solution, that is, slice services mapping to SFAs, and SFAs to NRP(Network Resource Partition)s.
If this draft is supposed to be a generic slicing realization document, I think, it should allow more options. For example, the slice services could be mapped to VPNs, and
VPNs mapped to underlying resources with method described in draft-ietf-teas-te-service-mapping-yang.

[VPB] Please refer to section 5.3 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet-08#section-5.3<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet-08*section-5.3__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!RKgzM9K5I6Crs9-9OkxWcIvs0atMYM1O1zZWrRa009HkrnmqRqcVdrJg4EU6Aib-$>). It does note that the usual techniques for steering service traffic onto paths are applicable -- the example that you cite is certainly allowed. We can add a reference to draft-ietf-teas-te-service-mapping-yang in this section and make it explicit.

[Bo Wu] Thanks for the clarification, but my concerns are not just about Section 5.3. Taking Section 3.3 as an example,  Slice-Flow Aggregation Mapping, there are also multiple sections titled with SFA. I hope that the name can be changed to  "slice service mapping”  or “slice service flow mapping" and the options described in section 5.3 can also be reflected in those sections. Otherwise, as Med suggested, maybe the draft name could be changed to “Realizing Network Slices in IP/MPLS Networks supporting SFA”.


2. This draft refers to draft-bestbar-teas-yang-slice-policy, but the following definition are not consistent:
1) SFA is not defined in draft-bestbar-teas-yang-slice-policy, but is seems relevant from the definition. And I can't find NRP Policy selection Criteria in the model definition.
Slice-Flow Aggregate: a collection of packets that match an NRP Policy selection criteria and are given the same forwarding treatment ;

2) draft-bestbar-teas-yang-slice-policy defines Slice Selector, but apart from Slice Selector, this draft also defines FAS and FASL. It is recommended that the terms be consistent.
FAS: Flow Aggregate Selector; FASL: Flow Aggregate Selector Label.

[VPB] The last two comments above are for the NRP policy data model draft (Thanks for bringing it up!). We agree that the NRP policy data model draft needs to be updated to be in sync with the current terminology used in draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet. This should get done in the next few days. But please note that the NRP policy data model draft is not the one that is currently being polled for adoption.
[Bo Wu] I'm sorry my question is not clear. Let me rephrase it. As described in the document, the SFA is maintained by the controller, which means that the data plane within the device is not SFA aware. Then could you explain the reason of defining  FAS and FASL? And what are the differences between them and Network Resource Partition Data Plane Selector?


Thanks,
Bo
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Teas [mailto:teas-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:teas-bounces@ietf.org>] 代表 Lou Berger
> 发送时间: 2022年2月18日 21:28
> 收件人: TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org<mailto:teas@ietf.org>>
> 抄送: TEAS WG Chairs <teas-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:teas-chairs@ietf.org>>;
> draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet@ietf.org<mailto:draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet@ietf.org>
> 主题: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet-08
>
> Hello,
>
> This email begins a 2-week adoption poll for:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet/
>
> Please note that IPR has been disclosed on this document:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-bestbar-teas-n
> s-packet
>
> Please voice your support or objections to adoption on the list by the end of the
> day (any time zone) March 4.
>
> Thank you,
> Lou (as Co-chair)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list
> Teas@ietf.org<mailto:Teas@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
_______________________________________________
Teas mailing list
Teas@ietf.org<mailto:Teas@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas