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

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Fri, 21 August 2020 15:42 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.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 BEFCB3A0BB0 for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 08:42:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.049
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.049 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.949, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.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 A7jL4tBUi3na for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 08:42:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (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 99FF23A0BA7 for <teas@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 08:42:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BY5Nr2j50z6G7Jh; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 08:42:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1598024524; bh=Kbp6OVyYs/YMQCjIHkU71/9kPN6lgv2W92ndDXiLo1w=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=ARxUgnogOPN4LFE1qV51aL3X+b+sAcoPY6r1rT0UsRsTdq51uhZGzQbDDYBXW40JT fvdGJU65V9lO8GhZBW5kEtfdqXRjOL1xlYDOmRzPiqJrW1+7E/vrpkEsST/uwJFBdH cb0NxjAAy+sjIuGqtbHmQIvc6rhZ3O8sa8IhanZ0=
X-Quarantine-ID: <J72-mwiWGD38>
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at a2.tigertech.net
Received: from [192.168.128.43] (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net [209.255.163.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4BY5Np2gDmz6GD9W; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 08:42:02 -0700 (PDT)
To: "Luis M. Contreras" <contreras.ietf@gmail.com>, "Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com>
Cc: Kiran Makhijani <kiranm@futurewei.com>, Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com>, TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>, LUIS MIGUEL CONTRERAS MURILLO <luismiguel.contrerasmurillo@telefonica.com>
References: <CA+YzgTvnv5nUZ6OYx9GkFUxDHxAFNvYsx5LrFfho3860_MLfZA@mail.gmail.com> <330a76d8-2f05-795f-42a6-01de094b54b4@joelhalpern.com> <BYAPR13MB2437D23542B163D477B583C8D95A0@BYAPR13MB2437.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <93726585-ccdd-3460-e6c6-540f98ec9084@joelhalpern.com> <BYAPR13MB243700523A1B5D597973C1CCD95A0@BYAPR13MB2437.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <2265a594-f48f-3903-d998-3bb764df627a@joelhalpern.com> <b7b110ce14344cadb74b80ea9ccce144@huawei.com> <f07c0de8-6d51-7ffe-7ff5-8fb13212708a@joelhalpern.com> <3f563fbf4a3742a195e61d96844bd042@huawei.com> <CAE4dcxniwa35hmV81XwEU6uR_E2ZFyUmAyLumV6RJ_ZN+C0DhQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <ef4c124a-7e61-cbca-88f5-a874a0118f51@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 11:42:00 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAE4dcxniwa35hmV81XwEU6uR_E2ZFyUmAyLumV6RJ_ZN+C0DhQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/lVMGuxBD1GAjLgIbjbK9x_A70jI>
Subject: Re: [Teas] WG adoption - draft-nsdt-teas-transport-slice-definition - Appendix
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: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 15:42:08 -0000

Luis, I think I disagree with you.
Not of course, about the question of whether operators care about 
isolation properties.
But about whether it belongs in this document.

I am quite sure that when designing services for customers, you and your 
team worry about many forms of isolation.  Many of which do not appear 
in the eventual SLA (even if they do occur in informal discussion).  And 
many of which do not appear as explicit parameters on any of the interfaces.

The authors attempted t provide an observable definition of isolation. 
They were not able to do so.  The text they now have tries to claim 
utility, claims relevance to the customer, but is not acutally usable in 
designing a service.

"Isolation" as a network property probably is actually many different 
properties.  For example, a bandwidth commitment (which we do have in 
the definitions) is a form of isolation.  A delay variation commitment 
is a form of isolation.  But as a term on its own, separate from these 
parameters, "isolation" does not add value to this document.

Also remember that no document we produce will be or can bee complete. 
We produce useful pieces.  You put them together.  As an operator you 
add your many constraints, your customers goals and constraints, and you 
build and deliver service.

Yours,
Joel

On 8/21/2020 4:49 AM, Luis M. Contreras wrote:
> Hi Jie, Joel, all,
> 
> Just to share my view. The idea of isolation is intrinsically related to 
> the notion of slice in the industry, and as such it should be covered in 
> the definitions draft when referring to transport slices.
> 
> The development of what isolation implies, in practical terms, could go 
> to the framework draft or to any other specific document, and for sure 
> we can expect references to degrees of isolation achieved in the mapping 
> of slicing mechanisms to distinct transport technologies through the SBI 
> of the TSC.
> 
> Not covering isolation at all, basically makes the work on transport 
> slicing incomplete from an operator’s perspective.
> 
> In that sense I support keeping the text on isolation (as an annex or in 
> the main part of the document). For sure the text can be always 
> improved, but as it is now is a sufficiently generic definition to 
> facilitate the development of its scope when applied to transport 
> slicing in any other document.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Luis
> 
> 
> El vie., 21 ago. 2020 a las 10:26, Dongjie (Jimmy) (<jie.dong@huawei.com 
> <mailto:jie.dong@huawei.com>>) escribió:
> 
>     Hi Joel,
> 
>     Thanks for your clarification about the procedure.
> 
>     What I meant is to provide some background about the design team's
>     discussion, which may help the WG to review and give comments on
>     this draft. Of course the decision will be made by the WG.
> 
>     One of the reasons of keeping the isolation discussion in this draft
>     is that isolation has been considered as one of the characteristics
>     of network slicing in most of the related standards and
>     publications, and it would be incomplete if the definition draft
>     does not touch this. And in IETF history isolation has been
>     considered as one requirement of VPNs, the discussion is necessary
>     for explaining the relationship and difference between network slice
>     and VPNs. Also note that in the last paragraph of the appendix, it
>     tries to separate the requirements on isolation from several
>     possible realization mechanism, which makes this description
>     reasonably generic.
> 
>     Best regards,
>     Jie
> 
> 
>      > -----Original Message-----
>      > From: Joel Halpern Direct [mailto:jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com
>     <mailto:jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com>]
>      > Sent: Friday, August 21, 2020 11:28 AM
>      > To: Dongjie (Jimmy) <jie.dong@huawei.com
>     <mailto:jie.dong@huawei.com>>; Kiran Makhijani
>      > <kiranm@futurewei.com <mailto:kiranm@futurewei.com>>; Vishnu
>     Pavan Beeram
>      > <vishnupavan@gmail.com <mailto:vishnupavan@gmail.com>>; TEAS WG
>     <teas@ietf.org <mailto:teas@ietf.org>>
>      > Subject: Re: [Teas] WG adoption -
>     draft-nsdt-teas-transport-slice-definition -
>      > Appendix
>      >
>      > The consensus of the design team is relevant as a recommendation
>     to the
>      > WG, but otherwise is not relevant for whether the WG should
>     agree.  In
>      > terms of WG adoption, the design team draft has the same status
>     as any
>      > other individual draft. The WG comes to its conclusion.
>      >
>      > There is no obligation for the WG to retain the text from the
>     appendix
>      > anywhere.  In particular, the WG is under no obligation to retain
>     the last
>      > paragraph of teh appendix anywhere.
>      >
>      > I have not seen any good argument for retaining the text.  It
>     does not seem
>      > to add to or even fit with the purpose of the definitions draft.
>      > If anything, it is confusing at it seems to say "this is not a
>     parameter / this is
>      > a parameter"
>      >
>      > Yours,
>      > Joel
>      >
>      > On 8/20/2020 11:17 PM, Dongjie (Jimmy) wrote:
>      > > Hi Joel,
>      > >
>      > > In the design team there were several rounds of discussion
>     about the
>      > content in the appendix and where it should be placed. The
>     current text in
>      > the appendix reflects the consensus of the design team, although some
>      > minor edits were not included yet.
>      > >
>      > > As for whether some of the text in appendix will be moved to the
>      > framework document, currently the design team has no specific opinion
>      > about this, and feedbacks from WG are appreciated. While as Kiran
>      > mentioned, description and discussion about isolation is needed
>     in the NS-DT
>      > documents.
>      > >
>      > > Best regards,
>      > > Jie
>      > >
>      > >> -----Original Message-----
>      > >> From: Teas [mailto:teas-bounces@ietf.org
>     <mailto:teas-bounces@ietf.org>] On Behalf Of Joel M.
>      > >> Halpern
>      > >> Sent: Friday, August 21, 2020 7:00 AM
>      > >> To: Kiran Makhijani <kiranm@futurewei.com
>     <mailto:kiranm@futurewei.com>>; Vishnu Pavan Beeram
>      > >> <vishnupavan@gmail.com <mailto:vishnupavan@gmail.com>>; TEAS
>     WG <teas@ietf.org <mailto:teas@ietf.org>>
>      > >> Subject: Re: [Teas] WG adoption -
>      > >> draft-nsdt-teas-transport-slice-definition - Appendix
>      > >>
>      > >> Since I do not think that the material in the appendix is
>     useful, I
>      > >> for one will not push for adding it to the Framework.  You are
>      > >> welcome to dabate adding it to the framework with the rest of
>     the WG.
>      > >> But it does not belong in the definitions draft.
>      > >>
>      > >> Yours,
>      > >> Joel
>      > >>
>      > >> On 8/20/2020 5:20 PM, Kiran Makhijani wrote:
>      > >>> Hi Joel,
>      > >>> I am ok to remove some part from Appendix only if it is
>     included in
>      > >>> the
>      > >> framework first.
>      > >>>
>      > >>> But for the TSRE, I have proposed clearer and shorter text
>     that they
>      > >>> are not
>      > >> visible to the consumer of a transport slices. One of the
>     purpose of
>      > >> definitions document is 'define' common terminology in the
>     scope of
>      > >> transport slices, and all we are saying is that when realizing a
>      > >> transport slice, things TSEs will map to are called TSREs.
>      > >>> I am not able to see the drawback of saying so.
>      > >>>
>      > >>> Thanks
>      > >>> Kiran
>      > >>>
>      > >>>> -----Original Message-----
>      > >>>> From: Joel Halpern Direct <jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com
>     <mailto:jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com>>
>      > >>>> Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2020 1:19 PM
>      > >>>> To: Kiran Makhijani <kiranm@futurewei.com
>     <mailto:kiranm@futurewei.com>>; Vishnu Pavan Beeram
>      > >>>> <vishnupavan@gmail.com <mailto:vishnupavan@gmail.com>>; TEAS
>     WG <teas@ietf.org <mailto:teas@ietf.org>>
>      > >>>> Subject: Re: [Teas] WG adoption -
>      > >>>> draft-nsdt-teas-transport-slice-definition
>      > >>>>
>      > >>>> No, your replies did not in any way address my concerns.
>      > >>>>
>      > >>>> I would suggest removing the references to TSRE and more
>      > >>>> importantly removing appendix A.1, or at least the last part
>     of the
>      > appendix.
>      > >>>>
>      > >>>> Yours,
>      > >>>> Joel
>      > >>>>
>      > >>>> On 8/20/2020 2:54 PM, Kiran Makhijani wrote:
>      > >>>>> Hi Joel,
>      > >>>>> After having replied to your comments, we have not heard
>     further
>      > >>>>> if they
>      > >>>> were convincing.
>      > >>>>> Please let us know.
>      > >>>>> Thanks
>      > >>>>> Kiran
>      > >>>>>
>      > >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>      > >>>>>> From: Teas <teas-bounces@ietf.org
>     <mailto:teas-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern
>      > >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 9:04 AM
>      > >>>>>> To: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com
>     <mailto:vishnupavan@gmail.com>>; TEAS WG
>      > >>>>>> <teas@ietf.org <mailto:teas@ietf.org>>
>      > >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Teas] WG adoption -
>      > >>>>>> draft-nsdt-teas-transport-slice-definition
>      > >>>>>>
>      > >>>>>> Without repairs to the issues I have raised on the email
>     list, I
>      > >>>>>> do not think this document should be adopted as a WG document.
>      > >>>>>> We are close, but not quite there.
>      > >>>>>>
>      > >>>>>> Yours,
>      > >>>>>> Joel
>      > >>>>>>
>      > >>>>>> On 8/19/2020 11:50 AM, Vishnu Pavan Beeram wrote:
>      > >>>>>>> All,
>      > >>>>>>>
>      > >>>>>>> This is start of a *three* week poll on making
>      > >>>>>>> draft-nsdt-teas-transport-slice-definition-03 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 September 9th (extra week to account for
>     vacation
>      > >> season).
>      > >>>>>>>
>      > >>>>>>> Thanks,
>      > >>>>>>> Pavan and Lou
>      > >>>>>>>
>      > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>      > >>>>>>> Teas mailing list
>      > >>>>>>> Teas@ietf.org <mailto:Teas@ietf.org>
>      > >>>>>>>
>      > >>>>>>
>      > >>>>
>      > >>
>      > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fww
>      > w.
>      > >>>>>>>
>      > >>>>>>
>      > >>>>
>      > >>
>      > ietf.org
>     <http://ietf.org>%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fteas&amp;data=02%7C01%7Ckiranm%40
>      > f
>      > >>>>>> utur
>      > >>>>>>>
>      > >>>>>>
>      > >>>>
>      > >>
>      > ewei.com
>     <http://ewei.com>%7Cf26ab959470747a36b2808d84459a351%7C0fee8ff2a3b24018
>      > 9
>      > >>>>>> c753a1d
>      > >>>>>>>
>      > >>>>>>
>      > >>>>
>      > >>
>      > 5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637334499094612048&amp;sdata=%2FGSlz2Q4%
>      > 2B
>      > >>>>>> RAlZTXBv5
>      > >>>>>>> XlCZ9YKaUKQ7C4IUIgdQDVJ%2Bk%3D&amp;reserved=0
>      > >>>>>>>
>      > >>>>>>
>      > >>>>>> _______________________________________________
>      > >>>>>> Teas mailing list
>      > >>>>>> Teas@ietf.org <mailto:Teas@ietf.org>
>      > >>>>>>
>      > >>>>
>      > >>
>      > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fww
>      > w
>      > >>>>>> .i
>      > >>>>
>      > >>
>      > etf.org
>     <http://etf.org>%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fteas&amp;data=02%7C01%7Ckiranm%40f
>      > u
>      > >>>>>>
>      > >>>>
>      > >>
>      > turewei.com
>     <http://turewei.com>%7Cf26ab959470747a36b2808d84459a351%7C0fee8ff2a3b24
>      > 01
>      > >>>>>>
>      > >>>>
>      > >>
>      > 89c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637334499094612048&amp;sdata=%2F
>      > G
>      > >>>>>>
>      > >>>>
>      > >>
>      > Slz2Q4%2BRAlZTXBv5XlCZ9YKaUKQ7C4IUIgdQDVJ%2Bk%3D&amp;reserved=
>      > 0
>      > >>>>>
>      > >>>>> _______________________________________________
>      > >>>>> Teas mailing list
>      > >>>>> Teas@ietf.org <mailto:Teas@ietf.org>
>      > >>>>>
>      > >>>>
>      > >>
>      > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fww
>      > w.
>      > >>>>>
>      > >>>>
>      > >>
>      > ietf.org
>     <http://ietf.org>%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fteas&amp;data=02%7C01%7Ckiranm%40
>      > f
>      > >>>> utur
>      > >>>>>
>      > >>>>
>      > >>
>      > ewei.com
>     <http://ewei.com>%7C7bb861e35ac84653b62208d8454659ac%7C0fee8ff2a3b24018
>      > 9
>      > >>>> c753a1d
>      > >>>>>
>      > >>>>
>      > >>
>      > 5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C637335515772670726&amp;sdata=MZQKraVa8fj3
>      > BL
>      > >>>> sLRq9T9a
>      > >>>>> Ypp3C%2Bu1w9c7DgIVE6kE0%3D&amp;reserved=0
>      > >>>>>
>      > >>
>      > >> _______________________________________________
>      > >> Teas mailing list
>      > >> Teas@ietf.org <mailto:Teas@ietf.org>
>      > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>     _______________________________________________
>     Teas mailing list
>     Teas@ietf.org <mailto:Teas@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ___________________________________________
> Luis M. Contreras
> contreras.ietf@gmail.com <mailto:contreras.ietf@gmail.com>
> luismiguel.contrerasmurillo@telefonica.com 
> <mailto:luismiguel.contrerasmurillo@telefonica.com>
> Global CTIO unit / Telefonica