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

Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com> Thu, 23 April 2020 15:46 UTC

Return-Path: <shares@ndzh.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 97A113A0AC7 for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Apr 2020 08:46:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.223
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.223 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.275, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 dobzSM2Z53yL for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Apr 2020 08:46:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (50-245-122-100-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.245.122.100]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B38C3A0AC5 for <teas@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Apr 2020 08:46:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=166.170.25.188;
From: "Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com>
To: <teas@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 11:46:05 -0400
Message-ID: <016d01d61986$4cf2a210$e6d7e630$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_016E_01D61964.C5E10210"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AdYZhkLc6QmnoHl8SwuPC330rphQdA==
Content-Language: en-us
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 200423-2, 04/23/2020), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Not-Tested
X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/ceOQV5pxUXzQ0O133PI1JqLJuCw>
Subject: [Teas] draft-wd-teas-transport-slice-yang-01 - Mike question
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, 23 Apr 2020 15:46:13 -0000

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