[Teas] Network slicing framework : Issue #7: Workflow

Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Mon, 27 September 2021 18:25 UTC

Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: teas@ietf.org
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2021 19:25:26 +0100
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <055201d7b3cd$0b577eb0$22067c10$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Thread-Index: Adezy3Z20CHuNJR/TCK6n8h4jyhklA==
Content-Language: en-gb
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/mdfqeSknTRwpV4Chat8xK3NGl-4>
Subject: [Teas] Network slicing framework : Issue #7: Workflow
Precedence: list

Dependent slightly on the resolution of issue #6 (architecture and
terminology), we could document a workflow.

For example,:
- customer requests a slice
- NSC maps slice to a slice group
- NSC maps slice group to a resource partition
- NSC allocates resources to the resource partition

But it seems to me that these steps could happen in pretty much any order
depending to operational preferences and possibly the technology of the
network. 

For that reason, I think it would be wrong to document a workflow. (This is
a change to my original opinion!)

Maybe add a sentence to explain that the order that the architectural
networks are constructed is open for operational choice.

Cheers,
Adrian

[Teas] Network slicing framework : Issue #7: Work… Adrian Farrel
Re: [Teas] Network slicing framework : Issue #7: … mohamed.boucadair
Re: [Teas] Network slicing framework : Issue #7: … Ogaki, Kenichi
Re: [Teas] Network slicing framework : Issue #7: … mohamed.boucadair
Re: [Teas] Network slicing framework : Issue #7: … Ogaki, Kenichi
Re: [Teas] Network slicing framework : Issue #7: … Xufeng Liu
Re: [Teas] ***フリーメール*** Re: Network slicing frame… Ogaki, Kenichi
Re: [Teas] Network slicing framework : Issue #7: … Luis M. Contreras