Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet-08

"Wubo (lana)" <lana.wubo@huawei.com> Wed, 23 February 2022 12:39 UTC

Return-Path: <lana.wubo@huawei.com>
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 798763A0CAA; Wed, 23 Feb 2022 04:39:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 jvipdQpBqzYC; Wed, 23 Feb 2022 04:39:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C11193A0CA5; Wed, 23 Feb 2022 04:39:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fraeml708-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.207]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4K3bF93kN2z6H7Lr; Wed, 23 Feb 2022 20:38:53 +0800 (CST)
Received: from dggeme702-chm.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.98) by fraeml708-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256) id 15.1.2308.21; Wed, 23 Feb 2022 13:39:40 +0100
Received: from dggeme752-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.98) by dggeme702-chm.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.98) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2308.21; Wed, 23 Feb 2022 20:39:37 +0800
Received: from dggeme752-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.6.80.76]) by dggeme752-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.6.80.76]) with mapi id 15.01.2308.021; Wed, 23 Feb 2022 20:39:38 +0800
From: "Wubo (lana)" <lana.wubo@huawei.com>
To: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>
CC: TEAS WG Chairs <teas-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet@ietf.org" <draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet-08
Thread-Index: AdgosN6O3jhqrNV5TEiNrZ2OD5a3MQ==
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2022 12:39:38 +0000
Message-ID: <05f933414175441ab13d0779a81e1eae@huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.136.98.73]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/jaj2DZkIaRHkBEMIalhkGK-E3a0>
Subject: Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet-08
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <teas.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas/>
List-Post: <mailto:teas@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2022 12:39:49 -0000

Hi all,

I have read the draft and have some questions with the text and terms.

1. This document seems only define SFA (slice-flow aggregation) based mapping solution, that is, slice services mapping to SFAs, and SFAs to NRP(Network Resource Partition)s. 
If this draft is supposed to be a generic slicing realization document, I think, it should allow more options. For example, the slice services could be mapped to VPNs, and 
VPNs mapped to underlying resources with method described in draft-ietf-teas-te-service-mapping-yang.

2. This draft refers to draft-bestbar-teas-yang-slice-policy, but the following definition are not consistent:
1) SFA is not defined in draft-bestbar-teas-yang-slice-policy, but is seems relevant from the definition. And I can't find NRP Policy selection Criteria in the model definition.
Slice-Flow Aggregate: a collection of packets that match an NRP Policy selection criteria and are given the same forwarding treatment ; 

2) draft-bestbar-teas-yang-slice-policy defines Slice Selector, but apart from Slice Selector, this draft also defines FAS and FASL. It is recommended that the terms be consistent.
FAS: Flow Aggregate Selector; FASL: Flow Aggregate Selector Label.

Thanks,
Bo
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Teas [mailto:teas-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Lou Berger
> 发送时间: 2022年2月18日 21:28
> 收件人: TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>
> 抄送: TEAS WG Chairs <teas-chairs@ietf.org>;
> draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet@ietf.org
> 主题: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet-08
> 
> Hello,
> 
> This email begins a 2-week adoption poll for:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bestbar-teas-ns-packet/
> 
> Please note that IPR has been disclosed on this document:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?submit=draft&id=draft-bestbar-teas-n
> s-packet
> 
> Please voice your support or objections to adoption on the list by the end of the
> day (any time zone) March 4.
> 
> Thank you,
> Lou (as Co-chair)
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list
> Teas@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas