From nobody Thu Feb 4 13:39:06 2021 Return-Path: X-Original-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 613CD3A186D; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 13:39:05 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.989 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.989 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=futurewei.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iISewrp94TVj; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 13:39:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from NAM10-DM6-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-dm6nam10on2101.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.93.101]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6BCDF3A186A; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 13:39:02 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=oEyJPLmtZ9yYq/IQVTphwagpzn073D999Zo9JYDXySs4Y6Xt3t+DsO84aecT68V/GH972eq3VDN35dG1Ets7c0MCUI4ixG8cNYCC0/2FW/DgEFTWzgnoAkQZvrIr1qtf3t9/CuQlfith6dKnHEiPBntk4JBQDpaev+fdAUU1mtUILcvAoEnW4lLLl71zulmbQqR3TSq5wB22acpfe4Oza1bK6c5W01M68AexFOSPA7a1kGlrkVdtSVDbDNFF8ZEvP4/5hUmksx5fZfjwP22+PP3azqMxph6Kd/UNg7kg7xdGXQV5gEVVS/nQBafAoqsaFHQJTnVi1e+ePoWWjI2EwQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=tmvcaACbVoK/55bz+7zQDKFVlWGKof6Fqqu2R8r8Zbk=; b=UEPPzKVaGnDZZQGteVveHkkilfFPo4gLNI87UEwDtEj0Vu1L2JHGOrGdjw+fgRQIP68142HFTUeG5i2NV54YyDQnlVC1YF6QhC1XfhYajxzAns9BojKj9dBDpDaLvw2iQ+wkfGIktx/q2JWSFSpENtViHKXpvBIyHFHcR48oPxCYJNRrGc66jWAdSQUVys2rWJobGgwv9YwS2rlBr4VurzsTkhWJfIQLCfxlNzGb4s0ikfUmds/nUPFE20BqgWaI7kWaysRPy5EE8ncIbj4j4cXgoXK3hgWdvLk0OZperAH+CWm2h0Zg6QxTuUn376QrxoNiLuEr4/AGu3On85fZtA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=futurewei.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=futurewei.com; dkim=pass header.d=futurewei.com; arc=none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=Futurewei.com; s=selector2; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=tmvcaACbVoK/55bz+7zQDKFVlWGKof6Fqqu2R8r8Zbk=; b=emsIyfyZU4sBjrFJlRwxaxkTUJg2Ea87HTaoPbyJcXEF4N2Kz/ur7TjicDfEHEHFRGv8sDto1742yWkv6XSjJuViwV1bXVoURlEqeeoROFBTSaAip8RxmvCdy3j3Je/a+cjxrzwBh9oAx0xy/XHf7TJzOXv/1FvsrgQ/wTk26cg= Received: from (2603:10b6:a03:107::31) by BY5PR13MB3159.namprd13.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:a03:190::25) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3846.11; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 21:39:00 +0000 Received: from BYAPR13MB4197.namprd13.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::9572:7eaf:9d32:31ec]) by BYAPR13MB4197.namprd13.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::9572:7eaf:9d32:31ec%5]) with mapi id 15.20.3825.020; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 21:38:59 +0000 From: Kiran Makhijani To: "Luis M. Contreras" , Vishnu Pavan Beeram CC: TEAS WG Chairs , TEAS WG Thread-Topic: [Teas] WG Adoption poll - draft-nsdt-teas-ns-framework-05 Thread-Index: AQHW+vvEIZpvHPZbLE+gHPEXBUbeBKpIZVuAgAAck/I= Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2021 21:38:59 +0000 Message-ID: References: , In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: gmail.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;gmail.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=futurewei.com; x-originating-ip: [73.202.182.183] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 0f010101-a865-43d9-c4da-08d8c955487e x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BY5PR13MB3159: x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000; x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 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 x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:BYAPR13MB4197.namprd13.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(4636009)(376002)(396003)(366004)(136003)(346002)(39840400004)(55016002)(110136005)(26005)(9326002)(71200400001)(52536014)(66556008)(478600001)(66476007)(54906003)(6506007)(5660300002)(76116006)(66946007)(53546011)(66446008)(64756008)(2906002)(8936002)(966005)(4326008)(86362001)(33656002)(83380400001)(8676002)(166002)(316002)(186003)(9686003)(7696005); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: =?iso-8859-1?Q?ZfVE0yvVmXJA8bHSQColv6aem7xMfruxO0MiwQUZGEluzTpKM0hjzPhzA/?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?9cee0742XVpT54choXxsSkzH8uvhVkCFTdstBvK+cLf0FEYu+8eppbWkib?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?o7PNHLGqPASQWETWwWnHzdPdyekUX1qRSnh4ia+cCc3sXf/hIJsG+4wB65?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?qJaTTVcRkVRjynIcmQbp/2+y6P7Kef4RBBDjOM0OetQcrM7Q5gvewRqCwi?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?EDHy1gcU1bVnlvf+Bw5UgrizTlOdiQjYVMZbTshQCGG71HwaiEHQpzQeQh?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?6LVCTDdHl7jve/0fwCOVVt+Y2ZbHmF4GwrfVFthGXJ5Bkd1rtTw+CK8ciV?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?E7Mc1G46ioHAdC2GPfP1fKe2dos9BIT22fvRRxzYqwQnx3yPbwzLvtybgY?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?VFKfcLZgaR/5/qppHLiT7trDUZS5jCEiawEEjPKlDX6WoEevN5eZTYE54k?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?dEqzMUXldH57YtsTLhx1wUAx7PzKB2c9CzuheuwhTDBRS6UrokvOnTETSS?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?6Ps/fB+K7XUgZSy+wkO7tVi0MHLO5qmFBgFDocmPjpnbTf6++LChpgq7/A?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?4m4MnSROq7P59dEYSedlbUuC9DepWBxt1uMv3b3BmWM9U5Ck7HdXty5hCb?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?iWkfukDlpneKqZaMabBp9xM5sNvQE75SJrdZpZErbQ2WNDFPdGinDz/NDv?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?2CVrVarxrmDEsGneNOLdj3VlaRPu5SqGYFkGkL3+pOcUawuFYb1OZMy/z/?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?ND8GRCaxtnmCzWcK5qDlAjiQY5C+g9obdV+q+DKOYigXqS8h3e02ZoArxl?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?F/6Ihuho73Cup97HfwzsaeSEtAmWB1xvLbywz2K1zaOjs3ijpSHQvMy/5n?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?Pf1ZpBJq+o8YWzaYi9J1powK5SNtWz/kND6KZHsk/2Dyfp32MC5W71w1wr?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?oCC7Wa465IPqbR6vXmZ8p1AUjH3F4JgqlOTOAOC9UWIgy4gz7X2QDUQuFo?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?4hc0pon4DRNciaJk8fNqfh6koWYU6pHijT0nrzueJO3PbORXHe0CE99Rfw?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?9WdeoctfSnuAtZDOHPLuSIFw7GqHoCwUHnfzfgrL783tOcFws07aDQWb2A?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?fnA1iDF+TZqw7eHJ0I5FnM7rtEALnRrUEQK+qtKwdSQbQ70sWKjJ81pdpk?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?rlF38/Ml9N5Vxiyn8uYdSSd5KrxlNWi37E4pMdn1AoMUbTKS7P2sZlaZTo?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?IpMiqOLaLfZC5w93dReHfS1j5S13e7f2Xu8KvduDAdeFTajd7nQp9vB2Vy?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?yPcwxwrrcGaKQc5n3PrsWe5fxLWd1HAVqezy044/pICGHqFUOcXUiTDxZO?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?tTokIsuVDQ5c7q3uR4YA76ZTsWyY86Sw=3D=3D?= x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BYAPR13MB4197B83DC05E849F255E7EE9D9B39BYAPR13MB4197namp_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: Futurewei.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: BYAPR13MB4197.namprd13.prod.outlook.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 0f010101-a865-43d9-c4da-08d8c955487e X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 04 Feb 2021 21:38:59.6287 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 0fee8ff2-a3b2-4018-9c75-3a1d5591fedc X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: 5PNk4v30BGtDTk7DJ6bEYxa/SmkQB4FLOhxglpLCmG/va+rz3g97rnepd0cSaeKyRDFThtGh4tTvjZckq7cWgg== X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BY5PR13MB3159 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Teas] WG Adoption poll - draft-nsdt-teas-ns-framework-05 X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org 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, 04 Feb 2021 21:39:05 -0000 --_000_BYAPR13MB4197B83DC05E849F255E7EE9D9B39BYAPR13MB4197namp_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Luis, Good catch on section 3.2. For now we should consider cases for network sl= ices under one NSC. However, we should also be clear that NSC will work wi= th networks in different admin/operator domains using SBI. When this is not= possible, higher level orchestrator may request different slices from diff= erent NSCs and connect them together. -Kiran From: Teas on behalf of Luis M. Contreras Date: Thursday, February 4, 2021 at 11:41 To: Vishnu Pavan Beeram Cc: TEAS WG Chairs , TEAS WG Subject: Re: [Teas] WG Adoption poll - draft-nsdt-teas-ns-framework-05 Hi all, Despite the fact that I acknowledge the value of the document, I feel more = discussion is needed before adoption. So I don't support the adoption at th= is stage. Essentially, Some reasons for that are: .- The document states in sec. 3.2 that the NSC from one operator could req= uest IETF network slices to the NSC of another operator. This has several i= mplications in the NSC, and as such, should require more discussion. For in= stance: (1) there could be different levels of trustiness in the relationsh= ip among operators tat could imply different levels of abstractions, not ne= cessarily the same as with another kind of customer/user, then open the doo= r to the support of different kind of information to be supported by the NB= I; (2) the relationship between operators could come via higher level syste= ms instead, then relaxing / modifying considerations such security, monitor= ing information, etc; (3) having a direct relationship implies that one of = the the SBI implementations of a NSC should the same as the NBI, to support= this possibility; (4) there should be a common understanding / definition = of the abstractions between operators to express the services; etc .- The document has a specific section for ACTN (sect. 4). In fact there wa= s some discussion on the list about this, reflecting the fact that several = interpretations could be provided for a mapping as the intended in Figure 1= , without a single mapping of entities between ACTN and the intended framew= ork. Besides that, a specific document describing the applicability of ACTN= to slicing (draft-king-teas-applicability-actn-slicing) is now work-in-pro= gress, making the ACTN text in the framework document redundant with that o= ther document. In my view, sect. 4 is more confusing than clarifying, so I = prefer to remove it from the framework document, developing the applicabili= ty of ACTN to slicing in that other dedicated document. .- Section 3.5 described an initial workflow on the realization of IETF Net= work Slices but it focuses only on provision. Other aspects of the IETF Net= work SLice lifecycle are missing, and I think it would be important to desc= ribe since this framework will become the basis for further specifications = of functionality of the IETF NSC. For instance, capability exposure of the = NSC (what happens if some SLOs cannot be provided?), fulfillment, assurance= , etc, are not included/discussed. This is not an exhaustive review, this is just to remark the need of more d= iscussion for having clear the perimeter of the document before progressing= it into adoption, from my point of view. Best regards Luis El jue, 4 feb 2021 a las 14:43, Vishnu Pavan Beeram (>) escribi=F3: All, This is start of a *two* week poll on making draft-nsdt-teas-ns-framework-05 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 February 18th. Thank you, Pavan and Lou _______________________________________________ Teas mailing list Teas@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas -- ___________________________________________ Luis M. Contreras contreras.ietf@gmail.com luismiguel.contrerasmurillo@telefonica.com Global CTIO unit / Telefonica --_000_BYAPR13MB4197B83DC05E849F255E7EE9D9B39BYAPR13MB4197namp_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Luis,

Good catch on section 3.2. For now we should conside= r cases for  network slices under one NSC.  However, we should al= so be clear that NSC will work with networks in different admin/operator do= mains using SBI. When this is not possible, higher level orchestrator may request different slices from different NSCs= and connect them together.

-Kiran

 

From: Teas <teas-bounc= es@ietf.org> on behalf of Luis M. Contreras <contreras.ietf@gmail.com= >
Date: Thursday, February 4, 2021 at 11:41
To: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com>
Cc: TEAS WG Chairs <teas-chairs@ietf.org>, TEAS WG <teas@ie= tf.org>
Subject: Re: [Teas] WG Adoption poll - draft-nsdt-teas-ns-framework-= 05

Hi all,

 

Despite the fact that I acknowledge the value of the= document, I feel more discussion is needed before adoption. So I don'= t support the adoption at this stage. Essentially,

 

Some reasons for that are:

 

.- The document states in sec. 3.2 that the NSC= from one operator could request IETF network slices to the NSC of another = operator. This has several implications in the NSC, and as such, should req= uire more discussion. For instance: (1) there could be different levels of trustiness in the relationship amo= ng operators tat could imply different levels of abstractions, not necessar= ily the same as with another kind of customer/user, then open the door to t= he support of different kind of information to be supported by the NBI; (2) the relationship between operators co= uld come via higher level systems instead, then relaxing / modifying consid= erations such security, monitoring information, etc; (3) having a direct re= lationship implies that one of the the SBI implementations of a NSC should the same as the NBI, to support t= his possibility; (4) there should be a common understanding / definition of= the abstractions between operators to express the services; etc=

 

.- The document has a specific section for ACTN=  (sect. 4). In fact there was some discussion on the list about this, = reflecting the fact that several interpretations could be provided for a ma= pping as the intended in Figure 1, without a single mapping of entities between ACTN and the intended framework. Beside= s that, a specific document describing the applicability of ACTN to slicing= (draft-king-teas-applicability-actn-slicing) is now work-in-progress, maki= ng the ACTN text in the framework document redundant with that other document. In my view, sect. 4 is m= ore confusing than clarifying, so I prefer to remove it from the frame= work document, developing the applicability of ACTN to slicing in that= other dedicated document.

 

.- Section 3.5 described an initial workflow on the = realization of IETF Network Slices but it focuses only on provision. Other = aspects of the IETF Network SLice lifecycle are missing, and I think it wou= ld be important to describe since this framework will become the basis for further specifications of functio= nality of the IETF NSC. For instance, capability exposure of the NSC (what = happens if some SLOs cannot be provided?), fulfillment, assurance, etc, are= not included/discussed.

 

This is not an exhaustive review, this is just to re= mark the need of more discussion for having clear the perimeter of the= document before progressing it into adoption, from my point of view.<= /o:p>

 

Best regards

 

Luis

 

 

El jue, 4 feb 2021 a las 14:43, Vishnu Pavan Beeram = (<vishnupavan@gmail.com>= ) escribi=F3:

All,

This is start of a *two* week poll on making
draft-nsdt-teas-ns-framework-05 a TEAS working group document. Pl= ease
send email to the list indicating "yes/support" or "no/do no= t 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 February 18th.

Thank you,
Pavan and Lou

_______________________________________________
Teas mailing list
Teas@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas


 

--

___________________________________________

Luis M. Contreras

Global CTIO unit / Telefonica

--_000_BYAPR13MB4197B83DC05E849F255E7EE9D9B39BYAPR13MB4197namp_--