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

[Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>]

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.

 

Noted.

 

> 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.

 

Best,

Adrian





On Apr 15, 2021, at 5:44 AM, Adrian Farrel <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> > wrote:

 

draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices-00.txt