[Teas] Network Slicing: Name change "Filter Topology"?

Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Thu, 30 June 2022 21:51 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
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 DF289C15790C for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jun 2022 14:51:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YMY7dI2Ql35q for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jun 2022 14:51:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta5.iomartmail.com (mta5.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.155]) (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 EF930C157908 for <teas@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jun 2022 14:51:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vs3.iomartmail.com (vs3.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.124]) by mta5.iomartmail.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 25ULpdK2021933 for <teas@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jun 2022 22:51:39 +0100
Received: from vs3.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 099B04604B for <teas@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jun 2022 22:51:39 +0100 (BST)
Received: from vs3.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id F12394604A for <teas@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jun 2022 22:51:38 +0100 (BST)
Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.249]) by vs3.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS for <teas@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jun 2022 22:51:38 +0100 (BST)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V (93.197.bbplus.pte-ag1.dyn.plus.net [81.174.197.93] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 25ULpcCt028615 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for <teas@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jun 2022 22:51:38 +0100
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: 'TEAS WG' <teas@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 22:51:38 +0100
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <00b901d88ccb$936d4050$ba47c0f0$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AdiMyvcNol3nMsryR/ut0f2O1sQOAw==
Content-Language: en-gb
X-Originating-IP: 81.174.197.93
X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.1.0.2090-9.0.0.1002-26988.002
X-TM-AS-Result: No--7.932-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--7.932-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.1.0.2090-9.0.1002-26988.002
X-TMASE-Result: 10--7.932400-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: iCnRn57pcYUZnuop9luYIDjNGpWCIvfTTSz0JdEAJbRwmq5DHMikwP+Y Kp2Mb6xJaqbTYPDlHw6es2l9sEMcdB0TchLZ0DMLOIQ9GP2P2u++F//Mn3a2w40nZyQtGDZR4ZV BSSEMiAZaM5U7dRXqm5GTpe1iiCJqtD9qpBlNF8oVD3y1ctYHYbRyGGICxm42UEhWy9W70AEgBw KKRHe+r/ZTJaryD8buEWjBiI6NGYV6W0EE4m4suOW2zWV58zH5ukw3y0eP2vQ=
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/nXx83b1gkKVZF_bkfnbkXGOMItk>
Subject: [Teas] Network Slicing: Name change "Filter Topology"?
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 21:51:46 -0000

Hi,

After some background discussion, it seems clear that "Filter Topology" is
slightly ambiguous and might be better named "Filtered Topology".

That is, the topology has been produced by applying a filtering mechanism to
the base underlay topology. I.e., it is a topology that has been filtered.
It does not, itself, apply any filters.

Would anyone object to this change?


It's also been suggested to include a few examples of how a Filtered
Topology might be created in order to give some context. 
- Preselect links and nodes with certain performance characteristics to
enable more easy construction of NRPs
- Preselection of links with certain security characteristics
- Preselection of links with specific geographic properties
- Mapping to colored topologies

Again, any objections to adding this clarification.

Thanks,
Adrian