[Teas] draft-wd-teas-transport-slice-yang-01 - Mike question

[Susan Hares <[e-mail]>]

Bo Wu, Dhruv, Reza, and Liuyan: 

 

Thank you for your presentation in TEAS on the
draft-wd-teas-transport-slice-yang-01.    I had hoped to ask this question
on the mike: 

 

"Would you provide more details on why you felt the base model (RFC8345) was
not appropriate to utilize? "

 

It seems to me that you are proposing a customer level model  to monitor and
set-up the traffic slicing?    RFC8345 provides a base model with a customer
level.   The models L2SM and L3SM provided a customer level for general
VPNs.   You seem to be providing the equivalent for a traffic slicing.  

 

If you are looking to utilize the base model then providing a customer level
model is a good idea.  It is much cleaner than mixing it with the network
layer.  When network slicing was starting its work, I prepared this
suggestion as part of the first BOF.   

 

Would you do me a favor in your presentation of "customer level",  would you
careful distinguish between the following customer levels?  

 

End -customer --- 

        |

VPN customer (person/tools configuring) 

Service

    |  

VPN of network 

    |  

Base network 

 

Thank you!  

 

The I2RS WG (which chair) standardized RFC8345.   Your application was one
of the ones that caused us to work through the model and the issues with
yang. 

 

I'm excited to see your work in TEAS. 

 

Sue