Re: [Teas] What SLOs and SLEs should be in the Slicing Service Model?

[[e-mail]]

Hi Joel, 

It is. 

As mentioned below, this should be covered as part of service assurance/fulfillment/reporting parameters. Which parameters to put there is deployment-specific. Not all parameters tagged as SLO in the framework will end up as part of the assurance/fulfillment/reporting. 

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]>
> Envoyé : jeudi 24 mars 2022 14:52
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]; 'TEAS WG' <[e-mail]>
> Objet : Re: [Teas] What SLOs and SLEs should be in the Slicing Service
> Model?
> 
> Isn't it important to distinguish between "these are things I expect you to
> do, measure, and report" and "these are things I would like you to do even
> though they are not measurable or reportable"?
> 
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> On 3/23/2022 10:08 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > This message actually triggers a companion comment I have on the SLO/SLE
> taxonomy. From the service modeling standpoint, I suggest that we don't
> inherit that taxonomy for various reasons:
> >
> > * Things would be much simpler if we just focus on service requirements
> without making an assumption how such requirement is expressed and whether
> it is quantified/quantitative/qualitative/measurable/etc. Whether/how a
> specific service requirement is covered by service assurance/fulfillment
> can be part of the slice service definition itself.
> >
> > * What we may tag as an SLE today because of the technology limitations,
> may not stay as such forever. It may be true that an "expectation" may not
> be easily assessed using current techniques (and thus be tagged as SLE),
> but this does not prevent that innovative means would be defined in the
> future (which means that it is an SLO, not an SLE anymore).
> >
> > * We are artificially adding extra complexity for the modelling part as
> service requirement will need to be classified based as SLO or SLEs.
> >
> > * I remember that Kiran agreed at least to not import that taxonomy into
> the data model when we were discussing the call for adoption of the slice
> definition:
> >
> > ==(the full message from Kiran can be found in the archives)===
> > "However, it should not imply that NBI models are required to have
> SLE/SLO indicators and I totally agreed with your comments on draft-wd-
> teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang-03"
> > ==
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Med
> >
> >> -----Message d'origine-----
> >> De : Teas <[e-mail]> De la part de Adrian Farrel Envoyé
> >> : mercredi 23 mars 2022 14:47 À : 'TEAS WG' <[e-mail]> Objet :
> >> [Teas] What SLOs and SLEs should be in the Slicing Service Model?
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Sorry for my audio being a mess in TEAS today.
> >>
> >> I believe I heard the discussion between Kireeti and Reza correctly,
> >> and there was some follow-up in the chat.
> >>
> >> I agree that "Protection" is a realisation feature and so it
> >> qualifies as an SLE, if at all.
> >> But "Reliability" is clearly an SLO. Usually expressed as maximum
> >> down- time per unit of time, or maximum lost traffic.
> >>
> >> There was one thing that I *think* I heard. This was Reza saying that
> >> the service YANG model was only including the SLOs and SLEs noted in
> >> the framework. Maybe I misheard "only" because I think that might be
> >> a mistake.
> >> The YANG model should certainly be interested in what the framework
> >> says, but it is not a requirement that all SLOs and SLEs in the
> >> framework be in the model if the authors find that there is no
> >> interest in implementing them, and there should certainly be no
> >> limitation about including additional SLOs or SLEs in the YANG model.
> >> Indeed, the SLOs and SLEs listed in the framework are presented as
> examples.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Adrian
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Teas mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> > ___________________________________________________
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Teas mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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.