Re: [Teas] First version merged slicing draft [Was: I-D Action: draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices-00.txt]

Adrian Farrel <> Fri, 16 April 2021 18:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 591683A3104 for <>; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 11:51:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.783
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.783 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAY_BE_FORGED=2.699, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QGfsuxiGqCM8 for <>; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 11:51:02 -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 7752F3A3103 for <>; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 11:51:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 13GIovWU018880; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 19:50:57 +0100
Received: from (unknown []) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 518D92203A; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 19:50:57 +0100 (BST)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B68122032; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 19:50:57 +0100 (BST)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ( [] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 13GIopgr026907 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 16 Apr 2021 19:50:55 +0100
Reply-To: <>
From: "Adrian Farrel" <>
To: "'Eric Gray'" <>
Cc: <>
References: <001d01d731db$e8c59260$ba50b720$> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 19:50:49 +0100
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <006801d732f1$6ec76f30$4c564d90$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0069_01D732F9.D09992D0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQKlFR9rtZ9lu/wu/tozhy4xTzZsvwEOpWg9qRM2x8A=
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-
X-TM-AS-Result: No--15.512-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--15.512-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Result: 10--15.511600-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: CxmI61mtwh+yoI+bK8UPQmmpWpGzPzJdaMmm586o4gC3CLdtdG1oCD2j /N8mMgrkUu4OwQMBTLh7SBt8Yqx4U2G/iPOyVtTiznQMa4gTGT2hp756/rM6UsBIEjzZTOUN0xj TQ8V5r3EPU9ddY2iP92d82uqtin/iZ/AmuRGhx8xpTt57XuqMc4hYa99P1mmMLX3qyf3ewG+j+z /PaLqWMBUwQfyAV6XhIpTvfHCIVzbDvBwqevb8i/9N7e3lwkwbQZpQRfyCdHyp3QxRZDyTw0D1J 0iDDe1bLNIepOdNpi/WJZrDoFuaXbmL/WpmxcH78irf7wNB3ShN/kytWY0hQAsBsd/HCp115ztF 8OuvYTCdIa4Z4akFf/B1eNdloRv+0eczgee7i1MdZEkR8Y/meRUuc8ufuGB9HTeFXjBZrc9zk9u ipnk0760lnfUsoSBdX7VX/Yyk1YPKHLBzDotzpY6cpbnLdja9qf/efKFN1nDH/nxb0Y5vYXJnpq aItm1A4G8u5ncZgeVOsMZSsNUa2/hKa/j7YSM8bMGKOuLn5FWaR0BTe6y8qxdHX2eZFfZfPNePQ kIvZQvtO+VTDiOMYzvf4HSLZ3GN2WxanhQ8eAswQr/q2DojcXLkyLw13dcKUku+FPb4Sn+xweXf vRbRUUPvJ3FOzfy9cmNPbsALs6dk+XEsuYjbr+GECTbIgjb5qb3/o5s+OcNlkItsgYiqhdX3HuA vaX8y55sDx59/+LmUG1C0RdcjvGvMzXS0j2SaonthQauQjAYz0SQBTPKW4ZQBR+Vr4iFoYHbATa KFZ5OUuM97h7GQLgqHhM8oaneU8Nuyg8Klp4ueAiCmPx4NwGmRqNBHmBve1B0Hk1Q1KyJTZDOrz lZ+cFKMqIeOstifkU6UkIr/V+0fDJEoDuGx1v6JqU18r7Ox0mraQVxRI3z/VJTnzqFKSO20oIOG 1RdOsznyEDrnveAL+y/Id6IeihU2UW5BBwvluLYzXlMqj8s2PC/uW4J/xA==
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Teas] First version merged slicing draft [Was: I-D Action: draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices-00.txt]
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: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 18:51:07 -0000

Hi Eric,


Thanks for this.


Some quick answers in line…


> As requested, I will reserve comments on the technical content.


Appreciate that!


> A few comments with respect to the editorial process, thus far:


> 1) You seem to have included “Author” information in the “Unused Material” section. 

>    In fact that appears to be pretty much all there is in that section and - if we actually

>    remove it (as is the expressed intent) - there will not longer be any information 

>    relating to “Authors” other than that found in the “Contributors” section.  Interestingly,

>    the only information in this (“Unused Material”) section is the “Author Information”

>    (I suspect - but have not actually completely verified - that this section probably was

>    meant to contain more “stuff”).


The joys of reading I-Ds :-)

If you look at the ToC, you’ll see that the “unused stuff” is Appendix A, while the Authors are in a subsequent unnumbered section.

XML2RFC automagically puts the Authors in the last section in the document, and unnumbers it.


The Appendix is, indeed, empty in -00. Amazingly, I found a home for all of the text of both documents.

In -01, there are two small subsections of Appendix A containing text that didn’t seem valuable.


> Is it your intent to delete the section, but not necessarily the content of the “Unused

> Material” section?


I intend to keep Appendix A for a while. Text may be moved out of the main body and into it. That will give people an easy view of what is being removed. Then, when there is no objection to the removal, I will flush the removed material from the Appendix. And so on. Once the document is stable, the Appendix will disappear (likewise the Editor Note in the Introduction).


> 2) There are too many Authors, for this draft version, and I believe the intention was

>  to list many of the current “Authors” as “Contributors” (presumably adding their

>  information to the “Contributors” section) and have a smaller number of Editors.

>  In writing the previous version of the Framework draft, we used the RFC Editor

>  guidelines as to how many Authors should be included on the first page - and we

>  will clearly need to do this again.


At the risk of invoking Godwin’s Law, I was only obeying orders.

The chairs asked me to retain all of the front page authors from the two contributing documents.

You’re right that that is too many and we need to do something about it.

I am unsure how to reach the required “Less than or equal to five” without upsetting someone.

Hence I am appealing for people to volunteer to be moved from the front page and named as Contributors.


> 3) The “Contributors” section was a special concession to those folks that contributed more

>  than enough to the draft (and now drafts) to expect to be explicitly listed as more than just

> acknowledged reviewers and commenters.  The intention in this respect is to be consistent

> with generally applicable publishing guidelines with respect to properly crediting original

> contributions.  It would be a good idea to bear this in mind when you determine who to

> acknowledge where.


Yes, that’s wise.

What I did (similar to the front page authors) was to simply merge the Contributors sections from the two contributing drafts.

Similarly, I merged the Acknowledgements sections.


Again, I would be happy to hear from any of the people who are listed as Contributors that they think they only need to be in the Acknowledgements.


> 4) I like how you identified where - in each of the two source documents - you pulled the

>  current text.  However, I realized that it was possible that either you missed a few, or there

>  are sections in one or the other source drafts that should have been included in the

>  “Unused Material” section.


> Looking at the specific “F” and “D” labels you used, what is included, and from

> where, looks like this:


Oh, I should have made a table like this to avoid missing text. But, see your comment after the table.


> Draft                                                              Framework                                                      Definition 

> ======                                                          ==========                                                     =========

> Abstract                                                        Fab (Framework Abstract)                           Dab (Definition Abstract)

> 1) Introduction                                            F1                                                                       D1

> 2)Terms & Abbreviations                                                                                                    D2

> 3) [I-NS] Objectives                                    F2

> 3.1) [Definition and Scope of [I-NS]                                                                                  D3

> 4) [I-NS] System Characteristics                                                                                         D4

>             — Similarly for subsections 4.1, 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.1.3, 4.2, 4.2.1, and 4.3 —

> 5) Framework                                             F3

> 5.1) [I-NS] Stakeholders                                                                                                       D6

> 5.2) Management […]                               F3.1

> 5.3) Expressing […]                                     F3.2

> 5.4) [I-NS] Structure                                                                                                              D5

> 5.5) [I-NS) Controller (NSC)                      F3.3

> 5.5.1) [I-NS] Controller Interfaces                                                                                     D7

> 5.5.2) North Bound Interface                  F3.3.1

> 5.6) Mapping                                               F3.4

> 5.7) Realizing [I-NS]                                                                                                               D8

> 5.7.1) Underlying Technology                 F3.5

> 6) Applicability of ACTN to [I-NS]               F4

> 7) Isolation in [I-NS]                                                                                                              D9

> 7.1) Isolation as a Service [Req…]                                                                                      D9.1

> 7.2) Isolation in [I-NS] Realization                                                                                     D9.2

> 8) Management Considerations               F5.1

> 9) Security Considerations                       F5.2                                                                   D10


Below this point, the source of the material is not important because it is non-technical.


> 9.1) Privacy Considerations                     F5.3

> 10) IANA Considerations                          F5.4                                                                   [D11]

> 11) Acknowledgements                            F6                                                                       D12

> 12) Contributors                                         [F?]

> 13) References                                            (presumably these came from both source drafts)


> Comparing this to the ToC for each of the source drafts, I do not see anything that has

> been omitted - at least at the section level.


Hooray! Thank you for checking. Looks like I managed to do my job correctly :-)


>  If specific text in any of the sections was omitted, it should have been included in the

> “Unused Material” section


In -00 there is no omitted text (I was surprised). In -01 there is some omitted text. Later versions may have more omitted text.


> otherwise, the Author Information should have been included, the “Unused Material”

> section (Appendix A), and the reference to it in the Editor’s note in the Introduction,

> should have been omitted.


As noted above, the Authors are not omitted, it’s just a formatting quirk.

The Editor’s Note and the Appendix will evolve.


> Some comments with respect to the resulting draft ToC and the sources

> from which it was taken:

> 1) I use the abbreviation “I-NS” for convenience in  these comments only - I am

>  not suggesting its use generally.




> 2) Section 5.6 (“Mapping”) may require contextual clarification in the above

>  restructuring; otherwise, the new ordering of content is mostly fine.


Yes, good call.

In -01 I moved that small paragraph to be the second paragraph of 5.3 (was 5.5 in -00 “IETF Network Slice Controller (NSC)”)


> 3) "Privacy Considerations” are _not_ a subset of “Security Considerations” (as

> is implied in the above numbering).  There is significant overlap, yet - contrary to

> intuition - it is quite possible to have a privacy violation without a concomitant

> security violation.  In summary, the difference is in the concept of PII (personal

> identifying information - which does not actually include the freight associated

> with the intuitive meaning of “personal”); “privacy” may be violated without

> direct access to security protected data and it applies not only to individual

> privacy but also to the privacy of classes of users.


I am happy to separate them into separate top-level sections. You’ll see this in -02.


> 4) you did not include D11 as a source for the content of IANA Considerations, even

> though it effectively was.


Yes, well. I get old.


> 5) The way it was setup in the XML (and source MD) for the Framework draft, the

> “Contributors” section was not a numbered section, very like the Authors section

> (which you have currently listed as “Unused Material”).  This was (as mentioned

> earlier) a deliberate result of the XML2RFC tools, for which I had to ask for a tools

> change (which I understand has now been made part of the most up-to-date

> XML2RFC tools).


Looking at the most recently published RFCs, “Acknowledgements”, “Contributors”, and “Authors” should all be unnumbered sections at the end of the document.

I think the RFC Editor normally sorts this out, but I see no reason not to fix it. Look for it in -02.


> 6) Obviously you will need to remove the previous drafts as “normative” references,

>  since they will become “overcome by events” once this draft is setup to replace them.


Yes. “Working towards”

They’ll be Informational in -02, and probably disappear soon after.


> The abbreviation “wrt” is most likely not appropriate (spell it out - “with

> respect to”).


Ack. Fixed in -01.


> Everywhere where you currently have “a (or A) IETF …” should be changed to

> read “an (or An) IETF …” 


Indeed, I think I caught all of these in -01.


> I have a raft of technical comments, but will any least wait for the next version before

> delving into those.


Looking forward to it.




On Apr 15, 2021, at 5:44 AM, Adrian Farrel < <> > wrote: