Re: [Teas] Thoughts about draft-nsdt-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition and isolation

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Sun, 15 November 2020 20:41 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
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 26AD83A0799; Sun, 15 Nov 2020 12:41:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 xat0CjzPjaSJ; Sun, 15 Nov 2020 12:41:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [193.234.218.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 036BB3A08FA; Sun, 15 Nov 2020 12:41:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A49D6600B9; Sun, 15 Nov 2020 22:41:26 +0200 (EET)
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id axWf9BYw1Aqt; Sun, 15 Nov 2020 22:41:25 +0200 (EET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2001:14b8:1829::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E4006601E4; Sun, 15 Nov 2020 22:41:25 +0200 (EET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <9e8170c6-399b-e954-2abb-5e5f425f172a@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2020 22:41:24 +0200
Cc: TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>, draft-nsdt-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A140DFC7-D5C2-4974-AC65-6E78DB795574@piuha.net>
References: <059e01d6b6ce$0f74a830$2e5df890$@olddog.co.uk> <9e8170c6-399b-e954-2abb-5e5f425f172a@joelhalpern.com>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, adrian@olddog.co.uk
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/m_8llTG4iAkjfl-BgBYfTngm6zI>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Thoughts about draft-nsdt-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition and isolation
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: Sun, 15 Nov 2020 20:41:38 -0000

> Thank you Adrian.  I mostly agree with what you say 

Thank you Adrian and Joel. For what it is worth, I also agree, and like Adrian’s suggested wording (and Joel’s amendment). The new text would also be more concise and alive the task we need it to do: explain the importance of the isolation concept and relate it to the concepts introduced earlier in the document.

I think this actually gives enough expressive power to do the most common things that people request. And if there’s things beyond, the model is completely extensible with the introduction of additional SLOs.

And I don’t think Adrian mentioned this, but I also thought the concept of backups/fault tolerance could be an orthogonal, and should not be mixed with the isolation question. But Adrian’s proposal solves that too by removing that part of the text.

Jari (no hats, just personal opinion)