Re: [Teas] Moving forward with draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices

[Jeff Tantsura <[e-mail]>]

Personally I prefer consumer, for similar reasons, however if there’s wg consensus to use customer, I’m ok with it, at the end it is the meaning of the word, not the word itself.

Regards,
Jeff

> On May 5, 2021, at 06:23, Shunsuke Homma <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Sorry for cutting in...
> 
> I’m not a native English speaker and I’m not sure if my understanding on the words is correct, but I think “consumer” would be more appropriate, because I feel that “consumer” implies people rend a slice from a slice provider with “paying fee”. (On the other hand, in my understanding, “consumer” means a user of a service and it is independent of whether he/she pays fee or not.)
> 
> As you know, network slice concept generally allows hierarchical structure (of course, the current IETF network slice definition allows it). For example, an IETF network slice may be used to provide connectivity (and some functionalities) to other slices, such as 5G slices, which are under the same provider, for creating an E2E slice. In such case, can other slices or a higher orchestrator coordinating these slices be called “customer”? (In this case, there would not be any payments.)
> 
> I’m sorry if my understanding on “customer” is incorrect and it can be applied to such cases.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Shunsuke 
> 
> 2021年5月5日(水) 21:18 Belotti, Sergio (Nokia - IT/Vimercate) <[e-mail]>:
>> Hi Adrian,
>> +1
>> 
>> Thanks
>> Sergio
>> 
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Teas <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Rokui, Reza (Nokia -
>> > CA/Ottawa)
>> > Sent: Wednesday, May 5, 2021 1:13 PM
>> > To: [e-mail]
>> > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Loa Andersson
>> > <[e-mail]>
>> > Subject: Re: [Teas] Moving forward with draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices
>> > 
>> > Hi Adrian,
>> > 
>> > I am fine with the definition of “Customer” provided below.
>> > 
>> > Reza
>> > 
>> > > On May 5, 2021, at 7:06 AM, Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > We currently have (in section 5.1, which may be a bit late in the
>> > > document)
>> > >
>> > >   Customer:  A customer is the requester of an IETF Network Slice.
>> > >      Customers may request monitoring of SLOs.  A customer may manage
>> > >      the IETF Network Slice service directly by interfacing with the
>> > >      IETF NSC or indirectly through an orchestrator.
>> > >
>> > > We could add "A customer may be an entity such as an enterprise
>> > > network or a network operator, an individual working at such an
>> > > entity, a private individual contracting for a service, or an
>> > > application or software component."
>> > >
>> > > Cheers,
>> > > Adrian
>> > >
>> > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > From: [e-mail]
>> > <[e-mail]>
>> > > Sent: 05 May 2021 11:58
>> > > To: [e-mail]; 'Loa Andersson' <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>> > > Subject: RE: [Teas] Moving forward with
>> > > draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slices
>> > >
>> > > Hi all,
>> > >
>> > >> Anyone else got anything to say on the topic?
>> > >
>> > > I would simply use "customer" and make sure the definition is generic
>> > > enough to denote a role/entity.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks.
>> > >
>> > > Cheers,
>> > > Med
>> > >
>> > >> -----Message d'origine-----
>> > >> De : Teas [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de Adrian Farrel
>> > >> Envoyé : mercredi 5 mai 2021 11:59 À : 'Loa Andersson' <[e-mail]>;
>> > >> [e-mail] Objet : Re: [Teas] Moving forward with
>> > >> draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network- slices
>> > >>
>> > >> Hi Loa,
>> > >>
>> > >>> On customer vs. consumer Adrian says:
>> > >>>
>> > >>>>  c. "Consumer" vs "customer". I have made this consistent (we
>> > >> only need to
>> > >>>>       use one term). I selected "Customer" because that seemed
>> > >> best, but I
>> > >>>>       know some people prefer "consumer". Please discuss if you
>> > >> are not
>> > >>>>       happy.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> If the choice is between customer vs. consumer, I prefer customer.
>> > >>
>> > >> OK. So I made an improvement, but...
>> > >>
>> > >>> I don't know if it is too late to bring this up.
>> > >>
>> > >> It's never too late to bring things up.
>> > >>
>> > >>> But I really don't like either, normal language has a strong
>> > >>> indication that that that a customer is a person (a person that
>> > >> walks
>> > >>> inte to your
>> > >>> shop) and consumer is also a person /that eats what I bought at
>> > >> your shop).
>> > >>
>> > >> I think you forget about wholesale. What do you call the school that
>> > >> buys food at the shop to provide to the children? Do you call the
>> > >> school the customer, or do you refer to the cook who buys the food as
>> > >> the customer? The contract is with the school, negotiated by the
>> > >> cook, signed by the bursar.
>> > >>
>> > >>> IETF specifies "systems", including what goes into SW and HW, but
>> > >> we
>> > >>> don't specify normative rules for human behavior.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> I don't know if we can talk about Customer System?
>> > >>
>> > >> I'm afraid of this getting heavy for the reader. There are 73
>> > >> instances of "customer" in the document, and "customer system" may
>> > >> become tiresome to read.
>> > >>
>> > >> Anyone else got anything to say on the topic?
>> > >>
>> > >> Cheers,
>> > >> Adrian
>> > >>
>> > >> _______________________________________________
>> > >> Teas mailing list
>> > >> [e-mail]
>> > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>> > >
>> > >
>> > ________________________________________________________________
>> > ______
>> > > ______ _____________________________________________
>> > >
>> > > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
>> > > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses,
>> > > exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message
>> > > par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi
>> > > que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles
>> > > d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete
>> > > altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>> > >
>> > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or
>> > > privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not
>> > > be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
>> > > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and
>> > > delete this message and its attachments.
>> > > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have
>> > > been modified, changed or falsified.
>> > > Thank you.
>> > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > Teas mailing list
>> > > [e-mail]
>> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Teas mailing list
>> > [e-mail]
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>> _______________________________________________
>> Teas mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas