[Teas] Re: IETF 120 TEAS WG Session - Draft minutes posted

["John Mullooly (jmullool)" <[e-mail]>]

Vishnu and WG,

I did not attend that last meeting, so this issue is new for me. The network-slice-nbi-yang draft has been thru WGLC with only one
nit raised by the document shepherd (Vishnu) on re-mapping several performance metric groupings to the te-type model
(and I believe Bo has made these changes).  My view is that the community has been eagerly waiting for this draft to finalize to RFC
so that implementations can begin to be reconciled accordingly so our industry can actually start realizing RFC 9543 slices.


I can see merits on the complementary “topology” slice model for Type 2 VN provider use (as discussed in teas-ns-controller-models &
Network Slice Topology YANG Data Model), but I think of these as advanced provider use-cases and in contrast to the more simplified principle

where the network topology is “a black box” (Type 1 VN) and the slice-nbi model is used to provide the external user/customer an

outcome/result/intent model that is technology agnostic (and as far as the customer cares network topology agnostic) as they simply want the

expected SLA/SLO/SLE met for their connectivity.



My view here is that I think it makes practical sense to keep these drafts separate and thus modular, where the topology draft can reference/augment

the nbi-yang-draft (as the team has already done).



This would provide flexibility going forward for adding these advanced Type 2 VN provider-based slice use cases where (pieces of) the network topology

can be exposed, but it’s unlikely Type 2 VN will be the primary use case for customer facing slice services.



This approach will not delay the slice-nbi-yang draft from being published so the community can begin leveraging a Type 1 VN

YANG model for framework RFC 9543 immediately.



Thanks

John




Cisco Confidential
From: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, July 30, 2024 at 1:20 PM
To: "Sergio Belotti (Nokia)" <[e-mail]>
Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, TEAS WG <[e-mail]>, TEAS WG Chairs <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Teas] Re: IETF 120 TEAS WG Session - Draft minutes posted

Sergio,

Thanks. Your comment about the larger scope of draft-ietf-teas-ns-controller-models is noted. But as you point out, the discussion on merging the two drafts is still very much valid. It is something that we would look to explore before the next meeting.

Regards,
-Pavan

On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 9:00 PM Sergio Belotti (Nokia) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi Pavan,
I di not realize that during the meeting, I’m sorry for that, but regarding the draft  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-ns-controller-models/02/ , there is a sentence in the minute that does not correspond to the purpose of the draft.
The sentence is “Vishnu Pavan Beeram: This is a WG adopted document that focuses on the models at the SBI of the NSC, while the next document on the agenda is
focusing on the models applicable at the NBI of the NSC; have you consider merging these two drafts?

Luis Contreras: It could make sense to do the merge. “
I do not think (as co-author of the draft) our purpose was to discuss relationship with SBI models , as well represented in the first slide of Luis’s presentation (the two red ellipses are related both to barguil-teas-netowrk-slice-instantiation nothing to do with  draft ns-controller)
[cid:image001.png@01DAE2A1.6045F360]
So, while the discussion on possible merging is still valid, but the real context is in my view different , i.e. not SBI vs. NBI of NSC.
Obviously the report should show what really discussed in the meeting , so , if it is the case my note can be considered a post-meeting comment.

Thanks
BR, Sergio


From: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2024 3:47 PM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: TEAS WG <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; TEAS WG Chairs <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: [Teas] Re: IETF 120 TEAS WG Session - Draft minutes posted


CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext<http://nok.it/ext> for additional information.


Thanks, Med.

Your chat comment has been captured in https://notes.ietf.org/s/notes-ietf-120-teas. We'll wait till the end of the week and then upload a revised version of the minutes to the datatracker.

Regards,
-Pavan and Oscar

On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 12:58 PM <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi Pavan, all,

I have one comment about this part

==
Joel Halpern（chat）：It is not clear to me what it would mean for this to
be a WG Informational draft. Such a status would seem to imply that the
IETF is recommending this approach to 3GPP.
=

I’d like we record also in the minutes the clarification I provided in the chat that the intended consumers of the draft are operators, not the 3GPP.

Thanks.

Cheers,
Med

De : Vishnu Pavan Beeram <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Envoyé : mardi 30 juillet 2024 02:20
À : TEAS WG <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc : TEAS WG Chairs <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Objet : [Teas] IETF 120 TEAS WG Session - Draft minutes posted

A draft of the minutes from the IETF 119 TEAS WG session has been posted:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/120/materials/minutes-120-teas-01

Please review and send comments/corrections to the list.

The session recording is available at:
https://play.conf.meetecho.com/Playout/?session=IETF120-TEAS-20240725-1630

Regards,
- TEAS WG Chairs

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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.