Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet-08

Kenichi, Hi!

Thanks for the review! This draft discusses the use of Network Resource
Partition (NRP) to support a Slice-Flow Aggregate. The NRP identifier is
unique within an NRP domain and is meant for use in the control/management
plane to identify the resources associated with the NRP (this should be the
identifier used in any relevant control-plane protocol extensions).

The NRP-ID is not the same as Flow-Aggregate Selector (FAS). The FAS is
quite simply the marking in the data plane packet that identifies a
Slice-Flow Aggregate. The same Slice-Flow Aggregate may be identified by
multiple Flow-Aggregate Selectors (see the example in Section 5.1.1 where a
range of VPN service labels – each acting as a FAS – select the same
Slice-Flow Aggregate). The solution architecture leaves room for an
implementation to overload the NRP-ID and use it as a FAS – but that is
strictly an implementation choice.

And yes, we do expect all other related work to eventually align and adhere
to what is specified in this document.

Regards,

-Pavan (as co-author)

On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 3:14 AM Ogaki, Kenichi <ke-oogaki@kddi.com> wrote:

> Hi Authors,
>
> I'd just like to clarify.
> Comparing Fig. 5 in draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices-05 with Fig. 1 in
> this draft, I understand that this draft also describes one of solutions
> realizing Network Resource Partition(NRP).
> If my understanding is correct, NRP-ID is essentially same as FASL and
> "Slice Aggregate ID" described at Fig.5 in
> draft-bestbar-lsr-slice-aware-te-00.
> From an operational perspective, it's burden to manage many slice related
> components and the mappings of these components, e.g. connectivity matrix
> <-> IETF network slice <-> Slice-flow Aggregate <-> FAS <-> NRP.
> Do authors have any thought to at least unify these identifiers in a
> series of bestbar drafts. Or, is there any reason not able to unify these?
>
> Thanks,
> Kenichi
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Teas <teas-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Lou Berger
> Sent: Friday, February 18, 2022 10:28 PM
> To: TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>
> Cc: TEAS WG Chairs <teas-chairs@ietf.org>;
> draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet@ietf.org
> Subject: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet-08
>
> Hello,
>
> This email begins a 2-week adoption poll for:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet/
>
> Please note that IPR has been disclosed on this document:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet
>
> Please voice your support or objections to adoption on the list by the end
> of the day (any time zone) March 4.
>
> Thank you,
> Lou (as Co-chair)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list
> Teas@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list
> Teas@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>