Re: [Teas] Moving forward with draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices

Adrian Farrel <> Sun, 23 May 2021 17:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F1DB3A1FA8 for <>; Sun, 23 May 2021 10:20:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.052
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.052 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MAY_BE_FORGED=0.846, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1AIpuFBmELC4 for <>; Sun, 23 May 2021 10:20:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D4CD3A1FA6 for <>; Sun, 23 May 2021 10:20:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 14NHKCTc012511; Sun, 23 May 2021 18:20:12 +0100
Received: from (unknown []) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11DE74604B; Sun, 23 May 2021 18:20:12 +0100 (BST)
Received: from (unknown []) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0647B4603D; Sun, 23 May 2021 18:20:12 +0100 (BST)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Sun, 23 May 2021 18:20:11 +0100 (BST)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ( [] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 14NHKB5P004525 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 23 May 2021 18:20:11 +0100
From: Adrian Farrel <>
References: 037401d740c5$70a9cc30$51fd6490$ <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 23 May 2021 18:20:11 +0100
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <006d01d74ff7$e335cfb0$a9a16f10$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQKdd92VtQp95eQmn5ckXW59Zh5ny6lk+cKw
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-
X-TM-AS-Result: No--9.333-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--9.333-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Result: 10--9.333300-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: hls5oAVArl+yoI+bK8UPQnFPUrVDm6jtC/ExpXrHizzLkl8e9W70i6n9 D3t+sZBoZfoJ6QKM2JPoeMabJXSOWsRBLZ5x+SkXvOAv94sAIMRBSY6kx+M18cK+joM7FGIaDuF b31nsxisU0DV4SS6GrhfsxFaCiY+IoHBkBbJBSWjFVAV8vDjN/9L5WpA78Ye8UIyjqB6pJR5uBZ TN3kr/hspMSeVqMmSr6dkYNdxnwWGiO3Qgdcs2/jXKFtsDtZ7TcV3n4J/0zUPDOS0FhcAXSgA5G J2VrMAgEqLTVBy1/PA1KNmmdOdS2q+/EguYor8cRjjVhf+j/wqLZAVphLW/bSq2rl3dzGQ1oWO6 dGF2K6IAtmXlTbxNCxiWwTJUw8+D1YO0qtqBVTyLw/1K7HdJQ8C+ksT6a9fy
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Moving forward with draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices
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: Sun, 23 May 2021 17:20:19 -0000

Hi Xiaobing,

> Some typo or comments for your consideration,

Many thanks. In line…

> 1. Page 10, the first line: be determined [by] the customer...


> 2. Page 12, in 4.2:  the 'multipoint-to-point' is duplicate.      
                The IETF NSE[s] are conceptual points of connection ...

Yes, to both.

> 3. Page 12,  it says,
> 'An NSE should be identified by a unique ID in the context of an  IETF Network
>  Slice customer.'
> 'A combination of NSE unique ID and NSE attributes defines an NSE in the
>  context of the IETF Network Slice Controller (NSC).'
> The unique ID of NSE is in the context (or name space) of IETF Network Slice
> customer. The context/name space of IETF Network slice customer may be
> different from the context of IETF network slice controller, considering, for
> example, difference customers could use different the same unique ID in
> their own customer contexts. It may need to consider the difference between
> the customer context and NSC context in order to keep the ID unique.

Right. I think the NSC is going to be aware of the customer ID/name, so that in the provider's context the NSE is identified by {customer,  NSE ID}.

I'm pretty sure the point here is that the NSE identifiers form a set across all of the slices that a single customer has and the NSE IDs are, therefore, unique within the customer scope not within the scope of a slice.

I don't see a typo to change here.

> 4. Page 20, 'IEFT' typo


> 5. Page 20,  'are mapped to the underlay IETF Network Slice Endpoints
>   (NEPs)'.    The abbreviation could be NSEs while not NEPs.

Oops 😊
Actually, this should be "EP" as in the diagram. A little additional tidying of the text is needed.

> 6. Page 24, security consideration, 'as some aspects of security may be expressed
>   in SLOs.'    
>   According to, security is expressed in SLE, and here, the SLOs could be SLEs.

Oh, well found!