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

Eric Gray <> Thu, 27 August 2020 20:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33E3A3A12A3; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 13:21:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5IkyEviBWiF5; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 13:21:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f2c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B03B13A129D; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 13:20:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id r19so3294906qvw.11; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 13:20:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=dQvnw/vQzyGmaZOikYy12gBJM99pcnQHW6WDIAXrXxQ=; b=qBhNnSofCvSHtfS24WhhXZ/0MQEPUhNeg2kne8ftgc9OEigGYWn1iPkjXKqs6dux64 PLCFGbHPc6x4P7Xb5QYwX80jms2ZQKHouKqHh2+NWmJTS3/X6hf9VLTSj1iW1cDolTwb JS1o3DjuzP27PKhcdyzqarqx4UVONqpqGH1TikPFY9oTKPxnZGTdR8V6Svliv4tIHV41 mL7XvOrYQUS32Eh8xQUQt0lrqJg2uliabwMqN4grbAa4p5egnFg2l2Iyz8Napx0skuTo Z2QB53H77l9BbJuNsiUNzx2+AYvyVZgmTuNfuQFMq/wkkdJj3LI0bxdQoS6KnOipR/by 4wFg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=dQvnw/vQzyGmaZOikYy12gBJM99pcnQHW6WDIAXrXxQ=; b=YOtfjrBXtg3ap7zoi1K1wwwg+X6kvKltjklX/xIFKJJZW+7dVYiUoVV6OpqTnr77tt CTwzvXtduDjtUXjaMZgGryC9U5ej6kGdEHKRsWACkt3MgAJVLQeecRw7/KIofZHSew5c roVSlmfjlg54keOwxJwUrH1shdamUIy/JqjltKHRtP+Y04Vd9dSmTIDsncNs2/2Gxf5T X/qsz9x3kNo2u1QHA8DlXpnCdawbC9JenTmkbpThdTE+oJqmob22+eibyAEcTSM2Vsm9 sxXTFvapV82ZJ1zHjjlP/dOyDORYpK1XTsD7WuL/HHDuxuRx1cK9w9qbYITIDJzuBdtY NArg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532mg0u98Mg56rfSCJRdLfX8OcGI5HHB6egP7qcwzMIAZ3wlPDqX eVCMfmOc0We5ZpwU4sY46TyOgTJhu14T5UoN
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyO3SyuRrwAwspplJFsQL7DYRIRoH8k0q00Tv5nc6YNGH6obeCprqjaYmWCqnO6Q3NTI12pEg==
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:f607:: with SMTP id r7mr20939694qvm.219.1598559658377; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 13:20:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:85:4680:3329:944a:5c1b:1c90:bc44? ([2601:85:4680:3329:944a:5c1b:1c90:bc44]) by with ESMTPSA id p33sm2895904qtp.49.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 27 Aug 2020 13:20:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: Eric Gray <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C5D3D50C-61ED-4BF5-906E-94A748B30E7A"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 16:20:56 -0400
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: Jari Arkko <>
To: TEAS WG <>, TEAS WG Chairs <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <a2a3697e-53d0-4d61-8323-532cb74d5444@Spark> <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Teas] WG adoption - draft-nsdt-teas-transport-slice-definition
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: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 20:21:06 -0000

With the changes suggested by the WG chairs, regarding removal of the appendix and adding placeholder text to the draft, draft-nsdt-teas-transport-slice-definition is even more ready for adoption than it was when presented at IETF 108.

I support the adoption of this draft.

I also realize that there is work cut out for the working group before this draft should be considered finished, and I see a lot of the discussion going on in the adoption thread as being somewhat ahead of its time - because the draft should be adopted as suggested by the WG Chairs - before we delve into the actual content and details.

As a co-editor of the Framework draft, I believe there are some simple ways to polish both drafts further along the lines of suggestions made by many people in this thread - but that is a discussion for after we decide to adopt the drafts.

Some of that discussion has already started - in background mode, as well as in this thread - but much of it should wait until we can make appropriate suggestions to the WG and gain some high degree of consensus on what to actually do.