Re: [Teas] WG Adoption Poll - draft-king-teas-applicability-actn-slicing-10

Inclined to agree with Kenichi. To the list of existing models that Daniele
listed, the draft
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-liu-teas-transport-network-slice-yang-04
augments the topology model, keeping all existing ACTN related capabilities.

Thanks,
- Xufeng

On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 9:52 PM Ogaki, Kenichi <ke-oogaki@kddi.com> wrote:

> Hi Adrian, Daniele,
>
>
>
> Thanks for discussion to my comment.
>
>
>
> See comment [KO] inline, please.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Kenichi
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Teas <teas-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Daniele Ceccarelli
> *Sent:* Friday, September 3, 2021 1:17 AM
> *To:* adrian@olddog.co.uk
> *Cc:* 'TEAS WG' <teas@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Teas] WG Adoption Poll -
> draft-king-teas-applicability-actn-slicing-10
>
>
>
> Hi Adrian,
>
>
>
> We’re getting there.
>
> Let’s try in line this time.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Daniele
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
> *Sent:* den 2 september 2021 14:37
> *To:* Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>
> *Cc:* 'TEAS WG' <teas@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* RE: [Teas] WG Adoption Poll -
> draft-king-teas-applicability-actn-slicing-10
>
>
>
> Hi, yet again,
>
>
>
> I’d be surprised if draft-ietf-teas-actn-yang suggested the use of the NBI
> at the moment because the NBI is still an individual draft – we don’t even
> know whether the working group wants to adopt it yet.
> draft-ietf-teas-actn-yang  cannot hope to list all possible future customer
> service models. But maybe a future version will include the NBI in the list
> in Section 4.1 when the NBI is stable.
>
> *[DC] I said it is suggesting to use the existing models like service
> network models (LxNM), TE models (TE topo, TE tunnel, VN) and the TE
> service mapping etc, not the network slicing one.*
>
>
>
> [KO] We don't mind the NBI will be included in the list in Section 4.1,
> but our intention is that it should be an enhanced/augmented actn-vn-yang.
> Same for your comments below.
>
>
>
>
>
> I don’t think that Figure 1 of
> draft-king-teas-applicability-actn-slicing-10 says that the NSC NBI can be
> replaced with the CMI. Rather, it says that the NSC NBI can be used to
> instantiate the CMI. That is, the CMI is an abstract interface in the
> architectural model, and a number of YANG models can be used to instantiate
> the CMI depending on the function being offered. That is, I think, exactly
> what Section 4.1 of draft-ietf-teas-actn-yang says.
>
> *[DC] I don’t disagree with you here. In the context of ACNT the term CMI
> means a set of models, in the context of network slicing another (the NS
> NBI), in none of them it could just be a subset (e.g. L3NM). I would have
> preferred that the NS NBI would have augmented them instead of defining
> something orthogonal. *
>
>
>
> Which model(s) an operator chooses to use at the CMI depends does not
> depend on whether they support ACTN or not. If they don’t support ACTN,
> they don’t have a CMI, end of story. But if they **do** use the ACTN
> architecture, they may offer one or more services to their customer. For
> each service they offer, they (may) use a different customer service model.
>
>
>
> If the provider wants to use slicing based on the VN model or the L3SM
> then that’s OK, and they don’t need to use the NSC NBI. On the other hand,
> they can offer ”slicing as a service” and may choose to use the NSC NBI for
> this.
>
> *[DC] Agree. Can we call the draft: “A service model for IETF network
> slice NBI” ? And in the text say that the model is one of the options that
> can be used as a “network model” ? *
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Adrian
>
>
>
> *From:* Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>
> *Sent:* 02 September 2021 12:54
> *To:* adrian@olddog.co.uk; 'Vishnu Pavan Beeram' <vishnupavan@gmail.com>;
> 'TEAS WG' <teas@ietf.org>
> *Cc:* 'TEAS WG Chairs' <teas-chairs@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* RE: [Teas] WG Adoption Poll -
> draft-king-teas-applicability-actn-slicing-10
>
>
>
> Hi Adrian,
>
>
>
> Good point, you’re right...not accurate from my side.
>
>
>
> Since ACTN, in addition to being a framework, is also suggesting which
> models to use, when I speak about ACTN I’m implying also the usage of those
> models: i.e. service network models (LxNM), TE models (TE topo, TE tunnel,
> VN) and the TE service mapping etc.
>
> I’m referring to draft-ietf-teas-actn-yang-07 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-teas-actn-yang-07> section 4.1 for the CMI and 4.2 for the MPI.
>
>
>
> I don’t have anything against the usage of this model as service model, but I see competition with the existing ones as a network model.
>
> I think Kenichi explained it extremely well in his mail:
>
>
>
> “1) According to Figure 1 of
> draft-king-teas-applicability-actn-slicing-10, NSC NBI can be replaced with
> CMI. If the new nbi is created, we have to parallelly implement two nbis or
> just wrap CMI with NSC NBI. From one of mobile operators' capex
> perspective, we don't want to do such effort, since we believe major ietf
> network slice requirements can be covered by ACTN.”
>
>
>
> BR
> Daniele
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
> *Sent:* den 2 september 2021 11:54
> *To:* Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>; 'Vishnu Pavan
> Beeram' <vishnupavan@gmail.com>; 'TEAS WG' <teas@ietf.org>
> *Cc:* 'TEAS WG Chairs' <teas-chairs@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* RE: [Teas] WG Adoption Poll -
> draft-king-teas-applicability-actn-slicing-10
>
>
>
> Hi again Daniele,
>
>
>
> > That’s a quibble that only solves the issue partially.
>
> > Should we use ACTN to do network slicing in networks that support
>
> > ACTN and the Network Slicing NBI model in networks that’s don’t
>
> > support it?
>
>
>
> You are comparing two things that are not the same.
>
> The Network Slicing NBI is a YANG model for use on the customer service
> interface. That is, it allows the customer and provider to communicate
> about the network slice that is to be provided.
>
> ACTN is an architecture. That is, it describes how the management
> components may be arranged/structured to deliver function in a network.
>
>
>
> You can use the Network Slicing NBI at an interface in the ACTN
> architecture.
>
> It could be used at the CMI (in the same way that the L3SM and L2SM can
> be): see Section 4.1.
>
> Or it could be used above the CNC: see Section 4.2
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Adrian
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list
> Teas@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>