Re: [Teas] WG adoption - draft-nsdt-teas-transport-slice-definition - Appendix

["Luis M. Contreras" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Joel,

the NBI, apart from considering measurable parameters, could need to
consider characteristics of the service. For instance, servicing a given
geographical area but avoiding any other for whatever reason (e.g.,
security, content rights, etc).

Isolation is not a directly measurable characteristic (maybe could be using
intrusive mechanisms similar to service activation tests such in ITU-T
Y.1564, thinking loud) but can be observable in case of eventual situations
in the network, I think.

Best regards

Luis

El sáb., 22 ago. 2020 a las 3:38, Joel Halpern Direct (<
[e-mail]>) escribió:

> I think Kiran that you are missing the point.
> What actually matters are the measurables, not the inferences.
>
> Sure, in the sales discussions if a customer asks "will my traffic be
> protected from competing traffic?" the answer will be "Yes, of course."
> When it comes time to write the contract and the SLA, which uses the
> SLOs, the contract terms will say things like
>      Traffic X will always have avaiable bandwidth Y.
>         [unstated, but assumed is "regardless of competing traffic"]
> or
>      Traffic Z will be delivered with delay variation less than A.
>          [unstated, but assumed is "regardless of competing traffic"]
>
> Isolation is not something special.  And it is not something that can be
> written into a customer agreement as a freestanding term.  Unless it is
> related to a measurable, none of the customer, the operator, or a judge
> trying to enforce the contract will know whether it has been met.
>
> Similarly, what goes over the (northbound) interface this document is
> concerned with has to be measurables.  Otherwise they are not
> deliverable.  (And this applies to any derived southbound as well.)
>
> The text in Appendix A simply sserves to confuse readers as to what we
> are doing.  Please, remove it.
>
> Yours,
> Joel
>
>
> On 8/21/2020 9:28 PM, Kiran Makhijani wrote:
> > Please see inline
> >
> > *From:* Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>
> > *Sent:* Friday, August 21, 2020 4:21 PM
> > *To:* Kiran Makhijani <[e-mail]>
> > *Cc:* Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]>; Luis M. Contreras
> > <[e-mail]>; Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]>; LUIS
> > MIGUEL CONTRERAS MURILLO <[e-mail]>;
> > Vishnu Pavan Beeram <[e-mail]>; TEAS WG <[e-mail]>
> > *Subject:* Re: [Teas] WG adoption -
> > draft-nsdt-teas-transport-slice-definition - Appendix
> >
> > Hi Kiran,
> >
> > I have to admit that I'm confused by the last paragraph in your note.
> >
> > First, you agree that isolation interpreted is not observable (though I
> > am not sure what quote marks around directly signify). But then you add
> > "will rely on other means of monitoring". Isn't any type of monitoring,
> > in fact, a method of a direct observation?
> >
> > */[KM] It is not direct monitoring, it is an inference from some other
> > piece of information. (I was just thinking out loud, how could you prove
> > it)/*
> >
> > Also, I sense that one of the motivations behind using the term
> > isolation is to differentiate between physical and virtual instances
> > that provide a service, e.g., physical link vs. a link in the overlay
> > network. If that is the case, perhaps we can avoid the contention around
> > the use of the term isolation as SLO
> >
> > */[KM] it is not an SLO, it is an additional ask or specification./*
> >
> > and instead add a parameter that can have two values, physical and
> virtual?
> >
> > */[KM] Yes, it could work but it is too specific to the example, what if
> > there were others. I prefer something along the lines of
> > traffic-separation./*
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Greg
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 3:53 PM Kiran Makhijani <[e-mail]
> > <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> >
> >     Hi Joel,
> >     Looks like your main concern is that text seem to say that isolation
> >     is observable.
> >
> >     That's not the intent. We just wanted to scope 'isolation' with in
> >     the context of transport slices not define it. During IETF 107 you
> >     gave a feedback that isolation is not directly observable, and we
> >     all completely agreed, dropped a lot of text accordingly.
> >
> >     In this text, the important piece is to capture that customer could
> >     also be very specific about asking "my traffic should be separated
> >     from (or should have no interference with) other traffic".
> >     This is not covered in the document and without such clarification,
> >     we cannot scope NBI properly. I was thinking if we define
> >     'isolation' then that can be a container in NBI. One common use case
> >     where customer could ask this is financial institutions or critical
> >     infrastructure explicitly asking for a (or a set of) physical ports
> >     or links.
> >
> >     The last para simply says there are 3 related things that customer
> >     could explicitly ask for (termed as 'isolation') and when realizing
> >     transport slices operators could possibly do so & so to meet those
> asks.
> >
> >     An alternative to deleting the text maybe  - don’t use term
> >     isolation but describe explicit requirement of traffic separation.
> >     And maybe clearly say this is not 'directly' observable and will
> >     rely on other means of monitoring that are case specific such as
> >     mapping physical port counters to service counters etc.
> >
> >     -Kiran
> >
> >      > -----Original Message-----
> >      > From: Joel M. Halpern <[e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> >      > Sent: Friday, August 21, 2020 8:42 AM
> >      > To: Luis M. Contreras <[e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Dongjie (Jimmy)
> >      > <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> >      > Cc: Kiran Makhijani <[e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Vishnu Pavan Beeram
> >      > <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; TEAS WG
> >     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; LUIS MIGUEL
> >      > CONTRERAS MURILLO <[e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> >      > Subject: Re: [Teas] WG adoption -
> >     draft-nsdt-teas-transport-slice-definition -
> >      > Appendix
> >      >
> >      > Luis, I think I disagree with you.
> >      > Not of course, about the question of whether operators care about
> >     isolation
> >      > properties.
> >      > But about whether it belongs in this document.
> >      >
> >      > I am quite sure that when designing services for customers, you
> >     and your team
> >      > worry about many forms of isolation.  Many of which do not appear
> >     in the
> >      > eventual SLA (even if they do occur in informal discussion).  And
> >     many of which
> >      > do not appear as explicit parameters on any of the interfaces.
> >      >
> >      > The authors attempted t provide an observable definition of
> >     isolation.
> >      > They were not able to do so.  The text they now have tries to
> >     claim utility,
> >      > claims relevance to the customer, but is not actually usable in
> >     designing a
> >      > service.
> >      >
> >      > "Isolation" as a network property probably is actually many
> different
> >      > properties.  For example, a bandwidth commitment (which we do
> >     have in the
> >      > definitions) is a form of isolation.  A delay variation
> >     commitment is a form of
> >      > isolation.  But as a term on its own, separate from these
> >     parameters, "isolation"
> >      > does not add value to this document.
> >      >
> >      > Also remember that no document we produce will be or can bee
> >     complete.
> >      > We produce useful pieces.  You put them together.  As an operator
> >     you add
> >      > your many constraints, your customers goals and constraints, and
> >     you build and
> >      > deliver service.
> >      >
> >      > Yours,
> >      > Joel
> >      >
> >      > On 8/21/2020 4:49 AM, Luis M. Contreras wrote:
> >      > > Hi Jie, Joel, all,
> >      > >
> >      > > Just to share my view. The idea of isolation is intrinsically
> >     related
> >      > > to the notion of slice in the industry, and as such it should be
> >      > > covered in the definitions draft when referring to transport
> >     slices.
> >      > >
> >      > > The development of what isolation implies, in practical terms,
> >     could
> >      > > go to the framework draft or to any other specific document,
> >     and for
> >      > > sure we can expect references to degrees of isolation achieved
> >     in the
> >      > > mapping of slicing mechanisms to distinct transport technologies
> >      > > through the SBI of the TSC.
> >      > >
> >      > > Not covering isolation at all, basically makes the work on
> >     transport
> >      > > slicing incomplete from an operator’s perspective.
> >      > >
> >      > > In that sense I support keeping the text on isolation (as an
> >     annex or
> >      > > in the main part of the document). For sure the text can be
> always
> >      > > improved, but as it is now is a sufficiently generic definition
> to
> >      > > facilitate the development of its scope when applied to
> transport
> >      > > slicing in any other document.
> >      > >
> >      > > Best regards,
> >      > >
> >      > > Luis
> >      > >
> >      > >
> >      > > El vie., 21 ago. 2020 a las 10:26, Dongjie (Jimmy)
> >      > > (<[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >      > > <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>>)
> >     escribió:
> >      > >
> >      > >     Hi Joel,
> >      > >
> >      > >     Thanks for your clarification about the procedure.
> >      > >
> >      > >     What I meant is to provide some background about the design
> >     team's
> >      > >     discussion, which may help the WG to review and give
> >     comments on
> >      > >     this draft. Of course the decision will be made by the WG.
> >      > >
> >      > >     One of the reasons of keeping the isolation discussion in
> >     this draft
> >      > >     is that isolation has been considered as one of the
> >     characteristics
> >      > >     of network slicing in most of the related standards and
> >      > >     publications, and it would be incomplete if the definition
> >     draft
> >      > >     does not touch this. And in IETF history isolation has been
> >      > >     considered as one requirement of VPNs, the discussion is
> >     necessary
> >      > >     for explaining the relationship and difference between
> >     network slice
> >      > >     and VPNs. Also note that in the last paragraph of the
> >     appendix, it
> >      > >     tries to separate the requirements on isolation from several
> >      > >     possible realization mechanism, which makes this description
> >      > >     reasonably generic.
> >      > >
> >      > >     Best regards,
> >      > >     Jie
> >      > >
> >      > >
> >      > >      > -----Original Message-----
> >      > >      > From: Joel Halpern Direct
> >     [mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:
> [e-mail]>
> >      > >     <mailto:[e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]>>]
> >      > >      > Sent: Friday, August 21, 2020 11:28 AM
> >      > >      > To: Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >      > >     <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>>;
> >     Kiran Makhijani
> >      > >      > <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >     <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>>; Vishnu
> >      > >     Pavan Beeram
> >      > >      > <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >     <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>>;
> TEAS WG
> >      > >     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]>>>
> >      > >      > Subject: Re: [Teas] WG adoption -
> >      > >     draft-nsdt-teas-transport-slice-definition -
> >      > >      > Appendix
> >      > >      >
> >      > >      > The consensus of the design team is relevant as a
> >     recommendation
> >      > >     to the
> >      > >      > WG, but otherwise is not relevant for whether the WG
> should
> >      > >     agree.  In
> >      > >      > terms of WG adoption, the design team draft has the same
> >     status
> >      > >     as any
> >      > >      > other individual draft. The WG comes to its conclusion.
> >      > >      >
> >      > >      > There is no obligation for the WG to retain the text
> >     from the
> >      > >     appendix
> >      > >      > anywhere.  In particular, the WG is under no obligation
> >     to retain
> >      > >     the last
> >      > >      > paragraph of the appendix anywhere.
> >      > >      >
> >      > >      > I have not seen any good argument for retaining the
> >     text.  It
> >      > >     does not seem
> >      > >      > to add to or even fit with the purpose of the
> >     definitions draft.
> >      > >      > If anything, it is confusing at it seems to say "this is
> >     not a
> >      > >     parameter / this is
> >      > >      > a parameter"
> >      > >      >
> >      > >      > Yours,
> >      > >      > Joel
> >      > >      >
> >      > >      > On 8/20/2020 11:17 PM, Dongjie (Jimmy) wrote:
> >      > >      > > Hi Joel,
> >      > >      > >
> >      > >      > > In the design team there were several rounds of
> discussion
> >      > >     about the
> >      > >      > content in the appendix and where it should be placed.
> The
> >      > >     current text in
> >      > >      > the appendix reflects the consensus of the design team,
> >     although some
> >      > >      > minor edits were not included yet.
> >      > >      > >
> >      > >      > > As for whether some of the text in appendix will be
> >     moved to the
> >      > >      > framework document, currently the design team has no
> >     specific opinion
> >      > >      > about this, and feedbacks from WG are appreciated. While
> >     as Kiran
> >      > >      > mentioned, description and discussion about isolation is
> >     needed
> >      > >     in the NS-DT
> >      > >      > documents.
> >      > >      > >
> >      > >      > > Best regards,
> >      > >      > > Jie
> >      > >      > >
> >      > >      > >> -----Original Message-----
> >      > >      > >> From: Teas [mailto:[e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >      > >     <mailto:[e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]>>] On Behalf Of Joel M.
> >      > >      > >> Halpern
> >      > >      > >> Sent: Friday, August 21, 2020 7:00 AM
> >      > >      > >> To: Kiran Makhijani <[e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >      > >     <mailto:[e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]>>>; Vishnu Pavan Beeram
> >      > >      > >> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >     <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>>; TEAS
> >      > >     WG <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >     <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>>
> >      > >      > >> Subject: Re: [Teas] WG adoption -
> >      > >      > >> draft-nsdt-teas-transport-slice-definition - Appendix
> >      > >      > >>
> >      > >      > >> Since I do not think that the material in the
> appendix is
> >      > >     useful, I
> >      > >      > >> for one will not push for adding it to the
> >     Framework.  You are
> >      > >      > >> welcome to dabate adding it to the framework with the
> >     rest of
> >      > >     the WG.
> >      > >      > >> But it does not belong in the definitions draft.
> >      > >      > >>
> >      > >      > >> Yours,
> >      > >      > >> Joel
> >      > >      > >>
> >      > >      > >> On 8/20/2020 5:20 PM, Kiran Makhijani wrote:
> >      > >      > >>> Hi Joel,
> >      > >      > >>> I am ok to remove some part from Appendix only if it
> is
> >      > >     included in
> >      > >      > >>> the
> >      > >      > >> framework first.
> >      > >      > >>>
> >      > >      > >>> But for the TSRE, I have proposed clearer and
> >     shorter text
> >      > >     that they
> >      > >      > >>> are not
> >      > >      > >> visible to the consumer of a transport slices. One of
> the
> >      > >     purpose of
> >      > >      > >> definitions document is 'define' common terminology
> >     in the
> >      > >     scope of
> >      > >      > >> transport slices, and all we are saying is that when
> >     realizing a
> >      > >      > >> transport slice, things TSEs will map to are called
> >     TSREs.
> >      > >      > >>> I am not able to see the drawback of saying so.
> >      > >      > >>>
> >      > >      > >>> Thanks
> >      > >      > >>> Kiran
> >      > >      > >>>
> >      > >      > >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >      > >      > >>>> From: Joel Halpern Direct
> >     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >      > >     <mailto:[e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]>>>
> >      > >      > >>>> Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2020 1:19 PM
> >      > >      > >>>> To: Kiran Makhijani <[e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >      > >     <mailto:[e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]>>>; Vishnu Pavan Beeram
> >      > >      > >>>> <[e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]>>>;
> >      > TEAS
> >      > >     WG <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >     <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>>
> >      > >      > >>>> Subject: Re: [Teas] WG adoption -
> >      > >      > >>>> draft-nsdt-teas-transport-slice-definition
> >      > >      > >>>>
> >      > >      > >>>> No, your replies did not in any way address my
> >     concerns.
> >      > >      > >>>>
> >      > >      > >>>> I would suggest removing the references to TSRE and
> >     more
> >      > >      > >>>> importantly removing appendix A.1, or at least the
> >     last part
> >      > >     of the
> >      > >      > appendix.
> >      > >      > >>>>
> >      > >      > >>>> Yours,
> >      > >      > >>>> Joel
> >      > >      > >>>>
> >      > >      > >>>> On 8/20/2020 2:54 PM, Kiran Makhijani wrote:
> >      > >      > >>>>> Hi Joel,
> >      > >      > >>>>> After having replied to your comments, we have not
> >     heard
> >      > >     further
> >      > >      > >>>>> if they
> >      > >      > >>>> were convincing.
> >      > >      > >>>>> Please let us know.
> >      > >      > >>>>> Thanks
> >      > >      > >>>>> Kiran
> >      > >      > >>>>>
> >      > >      > >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >      > >      > >>>>>> From: Teas <[e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >      > >     <mailto:[e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]>>> On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern
> >      > >      > >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 9:04 AM
> >      > >      > >>>>>> To: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <[e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >      > >     <mailto:[e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]>>>; TEAS WG
> >      > >      > >>>>>> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >     <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>>
> >      > >      > >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Teas] WG adoption -
> >      > >      > >>>>>> draft-nsdt-teas-transport-slice-definition
> >      > >      > >>>>>>
> >      > >      > >>>>>> Without repairs to the issues I have raised on
> >     the email
> >      > >     list, I
> >      > >      > >>>>>> do not think this document should be adopted as a
> WG
> >      > document.
> >      > >      > >>>>>> We are close, but not quite there.
> >      > >      > >>>>>>
> >      > >      > >>>>>> Yours,
> >      > >      > >>>>>> Joel
> >      > >      > >>>>>>
> >      > >      > >>>>>> On 8/19/2020 11:50 AM, Vishnu Pavan Beeram wrote:
> >      > >      > >>>>>>> All,
> >      > >      > >>>>>>>
> >      > >      > >>>>>>> This is start of a *three* week poll on making
> >      > >      > >>>>>>> draft-nsdt-teas-transport-slice-definition-03 a
> >     TEAS working
> >      > >      > >>>>>>> group
> >      > >      > >>>>>> document.
> >      > >      > >>>>>>> Please send email to the list indicating
> >     "yes/support" or
> >      > >     "no/do
> >      > >      > >>>>>>> not support". If indicating no, please state your
> >      > >     reservations
> >      > >      > >>>>>>> with the document. If yes, please also feel free
> >     to provide
> >      > >      > >>>>>>> comments you'd like to see addressed once the
> >     document is
> >      > >     a WG
> >      > >      > >> document.
> >      > >      > >>>>>>>
> >      > >      > >>>>>>> The poll ends September 9th (extra week to
> >     account for
> >      > >     vacation
> >      > >      > >> season).
> >      > >      > >>>>>>>
> >      > >      > >>>>>>> Thanks,
> >      > >      > >>>>>>> Pavan and Lou
> >      > >      > >>>>>>>
> >      > >      > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >      > >      > >>>>>>> Teas mailing list
> >      > >      > >>>>>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >     <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> >      > >      > >>>>>>>
> >      > >      > >>>>>>
> >      > >      > >>>>
> >      > >      > >>
> >      > >      >
> >      >
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fww
> >      > >      > w.
> >      > >      > >>>>>>>
> >      > >      > >>>>>>
> >      > >      > >>>>
> >      > >      > >>
> >      > >      > ietf.org
> >     <
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fietf.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7Ckiranm%40futurewei.com%7C9f6c466f17774a9ae70e08d84628ee14%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637336488898959798&sdata=i%2FH%2Fm%2FGG4ritzVpp08xIzXIK4YNiMj6Bqinei%2F7mGiI%3D&reserved=0
> >
> >      > >
> >      >
> >     <
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fietf.or
> >      > g%2F&amp;data=02%7C01%7Ckiranm%40futurewei.com
> >     <
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2F40futurewei.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Ckiranm%40futurewei.com%7C9f6c466f17774a9ae70e08d84628ee14%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637336488898969798&sdata=0vi%2FPjQDQF784ogZ3pZMeGneN4bceuPPuihcHOoeBTU%3D&reserved=0
> >%7C6e84819cea1748c
> >      > 9f64308d845e8c14b%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C63
> >      > 7336213276038270&amp;sdata=YEYEYBqLKk3v%2BrBZ%2FvEqYRqPq9m1eITo
> >      > eHak5DEVtDQ%3D&amp;reserved=0>%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fteas&amp;da
> >      > ta=02%7C01%7Ckiranm%40
> >      > >      > f
> >      > >      > >>>>>> utur
> >      > >      > >>>>>>>
> >      > >      > >>>>>>
> >      > >      > >>>>
> >      > >      > >>
> >      > >      > ewei.com
> >     <
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fewei.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Ckiranm%40futurewei.com%7C9f6c466f17774a9ae70e08d84628ee14%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637336488898969798&sdata=k49Ao2avtmNlZZSLxFrtYPkzSSJ12W6dcAnSZfR6IGA%3D&reserved=0
> >
> >      > >
> >      >
> >     <
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fewei.c
> >      > om%2F&amp;data=02%7C01%7Ckiranm%40futurewei.com
> >     <
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2F40futurewei.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Ckiranm%40futurewei.com%7C9f6c466f17774a9ae70e08d84628ee14%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637336488898979787&sdata=OPhISgDytgKqV7i9r2sIcriQd6XIt0eBZYZi7B0HYt4%3D&reserved=0
> >%7C6e84819cea174
> >      > 8c9f64308d845e8c14b%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C
> >      > 637336213276038270&amp;sdata=PDkVSDt7Cr1L01rmtnysaKRRafqOmKfrr9sN
> >      > G%2BmbpcA%3D&amp;reserved=0>%7Cf26ab959470747a36b2808d84459a35
> >      > 1%7C0fee8ff2a3b24018
> >      > >      > 9
> >      > >      > >>>>>> c753a1d
> >      > >      > >>>>>>>
> >      > >      > >>>>>>
> >      > >      > >>>>
> >      > >      > >>
> >      > >      >
> >      > 5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637334499094612048&amp;sdata=%2FGSlz2Q4%
> >      > >      > 2B
> >      > >      > >>>>>> RAlZTXBv5
> >      > >      > >>>>>>> XlCZ9YKaUKQ7C4IUIgdQDVJ%2Bk%3D&amp;reserved=0
> >      > >      > >>>>>>>
> >      > >      > >>>>>>
> >      > >      > >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >      > >      > >>>>>> Teas mailing list
> >      > >      > >>>>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >     <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> >      > >      > >>>>>>
> >      > >      > >>>>
> >      > >      > >>
> >      > >      >
> >      >
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fww
> >      > >      > w
> >      > >      > >>>>>> .i
> >      > >      > >>>>
> >      > >      > >>
> >      > >      > etf.org
> >     <
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fetf.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7Ckiranm%40futurewei.com%7C9f6c466f17774a9ae70e08d84628ee14%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637336488898989785&sdata=qk3DEhb0CDuMWuv5Bvby5v8hASoBaedDVA5KWyaVvUU%3D&reserved=0
> >
> >      > >
> >      >
> >     <
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fetf.org
> >      > %2F&amp;data=02%7C01%7Ckiranm%40futurewei.com
> >     <
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2F40futurewei.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Ckiranm%40futurewei.com%7C9f6c466f17774a9ae70e08d84628ee14%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637336488898989785&sdata=nwlLNsIR4YHNSqH6FkKSmiY9RQr3v4AqNc8oJm2JpaI%3D&reserved=0
> >%7C6e84819cea1748c
> >      > 9f64308d845e8c14b%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C63
> >      > 7336213276038270&amp;sdata=He3XPdNABefXKOz92Z0QYR2Va2KIe43lclCTD7
> >      > 12p5M%3D&amp;reserved=0>%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fteas&amp;data=02
> >      > %7C01%7Ckiranm%40f
> >      > >      > u
> >      > >      > >>>>>>
> >      > >      > >>>>
> >      > >      > >>
> >      > >      > turewei.com
> >     <
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fturewei.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Ckiranm%40futurewei.com%7C9f6c466f17774a9ae70e08d84628ee14%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637336488898999777&sdata=gmGb4yQzcuu%2Ba3gy2Vk7g9ArOPYJEJ2nuEKV0dPV97Q%3D&reserved=0
> >
> >      > >
> >      >
> >     <
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fturew
> >      > ei.com
> >     <
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fei.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Ckiranm%40futurewei.com%7C9f6c466f17774a9ae70e08d84628ee14%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637336488898999777&sdata=NqB51hPKoN7hh7lCvTw4EZ8jc%2Bp86Wz4ydg0uI2K%2BVM%3D&reserved=0
> >%2F&amp;data=02%7C01%7Ckiranm%40futurewei.com
> >     <
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2F40futurewei.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Ckiranm%40futurewei.com%7C9f6c466f17774a9ae70e08d84628ee14%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637336488899009773&sdata=A6VwFF%2BX9vWDkDbubs6ZwJ5yWecRxCH27Il1chW3fGE%3D&reserved=0
> >%7C6e84819cea
> >      > 1748c9f64308d845e8c14b%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0
> >      > %7C637336213276038270&amp;sdata=7PuKdwn1Yyw9PIxiIfj62%2Bya%2FBPG
> >      > fkCKgMnpTNbtAPs%3D&amp;reserved=0>%7Cf26ab959470747a36b2808d844
> >      > 59a351%7C0fee8ff2a3b24
> >      > >      > 01
> >      > >      > >>>>>>
> >      > >      > >>>>
> >      > >      > >>
> >      > >      >
> >      > 89c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637334499094612048&amp;sdata=%2F
> >      > >      > G
> >      > >      > >>>>>>
> >      > >      > >>>>
> >      > >      > >>
> >      > >      >
> >      > Slz2Q4%2BRAlZTXBv5XlCZ9YKaUKQ7C4IUIgdQDVJ%2Bk%3D&amp;reserved=
> >      > >      > 0
> >      > >      > >>>>>
> >      > >      > >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >      > >      > >>>>> Teas mailing list
> >      > >      > >>>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >     <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> >      > >      > >>>>>
> >      > >      > >>>>
> >      > >      > >>
> >      > >      >
> >      >
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fww
> >      > >      > w.
> >      > >      > >>>>>
> >      > >      > >>>>
> >      > >      > >>
> >      > >      > ietf.org
> >     <
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fietf.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7Ckiranm%40futurewei.com%7C9f6c466f17774a9ae70e08d84628ee14%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637336488899009773&sdata=YtwHjHJMdexxmf%2FgOtni7FuMCK%2BoN1tEzO83sKs39vQ%3D&reserved=0
> >
> >      > >
> >      >
> >     <
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fietf.or
> >      > g%2F&amp;data=02%7C01%7Ckiranm%40futurewei.com
> >     <
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2F40futurewei.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Ckiranm%40futurewei.com%7C9f6c466f17774a9ae70e08d84628ee14%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637336488899019770&sdata=Ebx7iTH1ZHOZYHLJRPJkiTOq2f101QGxoj7diCDpLy0%3D&reserved=0
> >%7C6e84819cea1748c
> >      > 9f64308d845e8c14b%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C63
> >      > 7336213276038270&amp;sdata=YEYEYBqLKk3v%2BrBZ%2FvEqYRqPq9m1eITo
> >      > eHak5DEVtDQ%3D&amp;reserved=0>%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fteas&amp;da
> >      > ta=02%7C01%7Ckiranm%40
> >      > >      > f
> >      > >      > >>>> utur
> >      > >      > >>>>>
> >      > >      > >>>>
> >      > >      > >>
> >      > >      > ewei.com
> >     <
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fewei.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Ckiranm%40futurewei.com%7C9f6c466f17774a9ae70e08d84628ee14%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637336488899029764&sdata=L6TlRSA7R%2FUEhvbO1G7ILnBQrB6v%2BE4HKXwZrep8MnE%3D&reserved=0
> >
> >      > >
> >      >
> >     <
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fewei.c
> >      > om%2F&amp;data=02%7C01%7Ckiranm%40futurewei.com
> >     <
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2F40futurewei.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Ckiranm%40futurewei.com%7C9f6c466f17774a9ae70e08d84628ee14%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637336488899029764&sdata=Srzj8P8Wtu%2BjzqWJraL01gfMDOQPos%2F6ld8NWW4xT%2BI%3D&reserved=0
> >%7C6e84819cea174
> >      > 8c9f64308d845e8c14b%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C
> >      > 637336213276038270&amp;sdata=PDkVSDt7Cr1L01rmtnysaKRRafqOmKfrr9sN
> >      > G%2BmbpcA%3D&amp;reserved=0>%7C7bb861e35ac84653b62208d8454659a
> >      > c%7C0fee8ff2a3b24018
> >      > >      > 9
> >      > >      > >>>> c753a1d
> >      > >      > >>>>>
> >      > >      > >>>>
> >      > >      > >>
> >      > >      >
> >      > 5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C637335515772670726&amp;sdata=MZQKraVa8fj3
> >      > >      > BL
> >      > >      > >>>> sLRq9T9a
> >      > >      > >>>>> Ypp3C%2Bu1w9c7DgIVE6kE0%3D&amp;reserved=0
> >      > >      > >>>>>
> >      > >      > >>
> >      > >      > >> _______________________________________________
> >      > >      > >> Teas mailing list
> >      > >      > >> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >     <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> >      > >      > >>
> >      >
> >
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.i
> >      > etf.org
> >     <
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fetf.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7Ckiranm%40futurewei.com%7C9f6c466f17774a9ae70e08d84628ee14%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637336488899039761&sdata=Hj%2B1D5kmLTUoVvYkj1MfuXhJvEP62dzttTslX7mFFdQ%3D&reserved=0
> >%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fteas&amp;data=02%7C01%7Ckiranm%40fut
> >      > urewei.com
> >     <
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Furewei.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Ckiranm%40futurewei.com%7C9f6c466f17774a9ae70e08d84628ee14%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637336488899039761&sdata=Vmir%2FW4ezf1i5fEseTzWYPycP%2FYBEERhEY031WZLWf8%3D&reserved=0
> >%7C6e84819cea1748c9f64308d845e8c14b%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c
> >      > 753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637336213276038270&amp;sdata=7y5PXKjGP
> >      > WZBvHzDObgm3N64pexXe8yeS8zH0YpWfNw%3D&amp;reserved=0
> >      > >     _______________________________________________
> >      > >     Teas mailing list
> >      > > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> >      > >
> >      > >
> >      >
> >
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.
> >      > >
> >      > ietf.org
> >     <
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fietf.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7Ckiranm%40futurewei.com%7C9f6c466f17774a9ae70e08d84628ee14%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637336488899049755&sdata=tvLFMHdzMdqH6k9k977HSkSpfcTmCKZoXrdo7cwW9AQ%3D&reserved=0
> >%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fteas&amp;data=02%7C01%7Ckiranm%40fut
> >      > ur
> >      > >
> >      > ewei.com
> >     <
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fewei.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Ckiranm%40futurewei.com%7C9f6c466f17774a9ae70e08d84628ee14%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637336488899049755&sdata=ZW9NvXJ6ux5gcNvgjWII%2BQsGaL3YRKS32Q8Bh1uFseg%3D&reserved=0
> >%7C6e84819cea1748c9f64308d845e8c14b%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c75
> >      > 3a1d
> >      > >
> >      > 5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637336213276038270&amp;sdata=7y5PXKjGPWZBvHz
> >      > DObgm3N
> >      > > 64pexXe8yeS8zH0YpWfNw%3D&amp;reserved=0
> >      > >
> >      > >
> >      > >
> >      > > --
> >      > > ___________________________________________
> >      > > Luis M. Contreras
> >      > > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >     <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> >      > > [e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >      > > <mailto:[e-mail]
> >     <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> >      > > Global CTIO unit / Telefonica
> >     _______________________________________________
> >     Teas mailing list
> >     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
> >     <
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fteas&data=02%7C01%7Ckiranm%40futurewei.com%7C9f6c466f17774a9ae70e08d84628ee14%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637336488899059751&sdata=KzFInnEA4Q3bmCD1NXkAX6dCxrzJwT%2BKv1NbOAcYX1o%3D&reserved=0
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>


-- 
___________________________________________
Luis M. Contreras
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Global CTIO unit / Telefonica