Re: [Teas] WG adoption - draft-nsdt-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition

Uma Chunduri <> Mon, 18 January 2021 19:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E63073A0A65; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 11:58:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y8XEBD2mmZO3; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 11:58:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b2b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 068A63A0A69; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 11:58:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id k132so6632070ybf.2; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 11:58:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=AMRp+qiaQSvElTCsgTmefDcgHH05r7IbfK58e0zEJ74=; b=hT8JvsA4Wb6CtSWcPSLdeFYYe/S8sFDvjMsE28PXS5+3bMDrsKbcrgqyIJtWPRR3u2 nyGQLCtS5k3pE9vFc7CxG80KQ2KdIGqnohd0PJ7jHuMy3lrEcx2BsX2QMAnK/ST5bi39 GDPn+L33yDUV+d/LYHUV+GquBVW25WD8WOkANnWC5Hf8rILWZSCuri+1GVTRWXxvvVL2 im8Ez0htnvCRANafI84eUfs7uh0U7TI2yXwxREqYd8MshQJT2vT5mw7vfFfqDhiHlguZ lj18D0uX5xZE8hw4OQe3Z3yMGWUnNgKYkfcvmgG4cXxPtj4IyXrV9dMBTb7Npz9EJZFU p+pA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=AMRp+qiaQSvElTCsgTmefDcgHH05r7IbfK58e0zEJ74=; b=O4roVSpfjktP96WzQ3YRW25kaJnKyDKCKahmsV9SiZv1NeqE4eahHFNHnw3Z4SRB5u uQEINO5bS5IiEBUCIHw7+ysRsB30ziKHX+vya1YrlYLgsrdUugPcQ7mELurTnXwUzywo hv2Pi3xRlRq9j8n2JAuD7jHgcjjQwDOR1WYDIbaRhoDSmWjX/3A0o4IVEiutxBrrZ9/p TOtaCGWDIyRYh78+tqxaFXBW14bve3b9sS9d+89hty1V4yoa/w8KI0Uz/cF28yZwsfvI l9HHZp9sGA5mJovZzRw9WNEWNdF1DvPyvUev1jWHXNc789qUIt3txhB0xKMohYG4+4Vy oy9g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533QQc/3eETlkgXis8Kg+P92V30QH1vXDFyfSBwi8jEEJgi1tfGB 9plUOhBnPSk8PXoFws6tQ917HecfWbgbkPCUrTU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzt+SNZUX7d3qwOOt/Io0C/qmA46H7pj86cY3toBG8o5iKPx/VDMAhIigXGZo4FseqbC7MVP02eSsu7QWVeO4E=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:9981:: with SMTP id p1mr1007601ybo.241.1610999931127; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 11:58:51 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Uma Chunduri <>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2021 11:58:40 -0800
Message-ID: <>
To: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <>
Cc: TEAS WG <>, TEAS WG Chairs <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a0c7dd05b93226dd"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Teas] WG adoption - draft-nsdt-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition
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: Mon, 18 Jan 2021 19:58:54 -0000

Dear All,

The definitions and scope defined in this draft can be applicable to many
networks in a generic fashion, where IETF technologies are used  in various
network segments. I see tremendous work done by the Design Team with folks
who participated in multi-domain slicing BoFs prior to that  to get to this

However, though the name "IETF Network slice" certainly distinguishes the
slicing work being done in many global organizations (viz., ITU-T GSTR
TN5G, ONF SDN, 3GPP 5G, ETSI ISGs NGP & NFV, GSMA, MEF LSO to name a few) ,
it creates bit complexity  when this is being applied and being referred in
E2E scenarios specific to a domain. I can give examples a bit later.

I also still see a lot of other documents in this group still refer to
Transport Network/Transport Network Slice. I presume the name will be
changed across all these documents in future.
I personally feel we (as IETF) can distinguish this important work and
applicability of this work being explicitly prepending 'IETF'. I shall
respond to the other thread here with my suggestion.

Last but not least, I support this work and help further to make this

Uma C.

On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 6:02 AM Vishnu Pavan Beeram <>

> All,
> This is start of a two week poll on making
> draft-nsdt-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition-02 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 January 18th.
> Thanks,
> Pavan and Lou
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list