Re: [Teas] I-D Action: draft-nsdt-teas-transport-slice-definition-03.txt

Eric Gray <ewgray2k@gmail.com> Wed, 12 August 2020 13:45 UTC

Return-Path: <ewgray2k@gmail.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 A879F3A106C for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 06:45:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 keDHUmf95d2f for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 06:45:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x82c.google.com (mail-qt1-x82c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F8C63A1046 for <teas@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 06:45:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x82c.google.com with SMTP id e5so1466124qth.5 for <teas@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 06:45:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=bmnQVdCGpR68Ok2/i0PhTwzx9DEwDYpp+mY7K2WcwSU=; b=DVMiUyPEGpiAjlgtnUAoNh09geoi0EUxUseXDIMcJsjycQjdDBJxYLMBa4gMGkGntf +XUqHtTnkVO/YLg4sSnN5n9X9UnGzhNFWxpF+wREHGChhhemrlt8elEVPp35t+QS6/iM igOsBRY1z+3iGCJNtbtYIhYgvsrQYPyEp28FSSD7V4M2eBlQAxnHNHGw8ip2jJXd75ke DKBj/y3ErdF1dykvB4M2cCdTNThih1JICvRuAVzzc82Z9YiTVcam1qykAkzIVF/xbqW7 pzlUdXE7y+1RIuk9tmU439vzMwrD54qleMYkRNKBJvAgH1pvvZwj6Gon4QUMbaZyp2C8 ODZg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=bmnQVdCGpR68Ok2/i0PhTwzx9DEwDYpp+mY7K2WcwSU=; b=A7QKp1c7FVcTAmewiuLiuRzKLp14JM/y5T0Pn2+qSnJiTlRw/b6G9Ksk0NpgL1nF+c ycFFfRvvaNWrMetR5u3/AXwJhJtCCmy9G6MyIERMf9x+w2YfV6zLZzwYWfh5Go7+KvLh fGK0R4sWrxvel92Gcy4T0Dm9jx/RXYKbjthqlwj1aA+t5tGKA1MbCeHw7Ys8MxW+5alt libZdvNQcyHdBuEyys/gReZe+5cR+6V42Q4aB9uhPNRoflLca6SOrmJhpzABxIVqHcVo MyK+3fBW5OoE+Zr0rk68W2ViehkI7UUlm2btkueAPN3EQ55j9mVV41l2hmshlxDa69yJ Aawg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532MkcUZgadLzWlMkICTaMVvJpIM1tCH+6YqRNhQ/qfI3HiUfu2R 1JIdkCKFCLfCZ9g92+ps+oI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJywJ5xu1Nh250IhkmBuHCe54nchtISHU8K8ZUe9wCon/t7wK3Zp2JDIFvNBtL/gSDQIoiczHw==
X-Received: by 2002:aed:3aa5:: with SMTP id o34mr6738884qte.359.1597239936160; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 06:45:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:85:4680:3329:2ded:376c:adf8:cd72? ([2601:85:4680:3329:2ded:376c:adf8:cd72]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c9sm2217907qkm.44.2020.08.12.06.45.33 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 12 Aug 2020 06:45:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: Eric Gray <ewgray2k@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <CD7D5453-D1B7-4E8B-97FA-ADF588A38A2C@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_DF70D701-60CA-4A8C-95F0-A7925AA8779A"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 09:45:33 -0400
In-Reply-To: <C12F4B26-60EB-4043-BBCF-9DF27754B312@nokia.com>
Cc: Joel Halpern Direct <jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com>, "teas@ietf.org" <teas@ietf.org>
To: "Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <reza.rokui@nokia.com>
References: <159460858327.31249.6774312592426516405@ietfa.amsl.com> <a671ad62-65ea-134f-7855-ee3008539e0b@joelhalpern.com> <8757A5BE-BD59-4B9C-A5E9-0DC4A4D74D87@nokia.com> <a4254b80-81de-25cb-d0b2-f3863024fa23@joelhalpern.com> <C12F4B26-60EB-4043-BBCF-9DF27754B312@nokia.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/noolNo6ZnsGR-8WEWfxPC5TjGXI>
Subject: Re: [Teas] I-D Action: draft-nsdt-teas-transport-slice-definition-03.txt
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: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 13:45:41 -0000

Reza,

	On the topic of continued inclusion of TSRE.

	You are inappropriately assuming that we will _ever_ be undertaking standards work that details the much of the internals of the transport slice controller.

	I did not object to including some text on the topic of a South-Bound Interface (SBI) - even though this is also out of scope in our work (being again a part of the logical model for interactions between the TSC and “stuff” underlying it) - because of the argument that it is useful to think of an SBI in order to allow examples to be made for using various technology specific service models.

	This is legitimate, because the use of such examples suggests some similar work on technology-specific service models that might be useful for support some possible TSC implementations.

	But Joel makes a very good point in saying that TSRE is out of scope in this draft.  Also, Joel earlier made the point that including out-of-scope concepts strictly intended for use in future work is misguided.

	For our purposes, it would be more useful to limit ourselves to a simpler set of definitions that do not include additional and out-of-scope confusing concepts.

	Finally, your stance on whether or not to remove this concept should be based on TEAS working group consensus to continue to include it - rather than your personal inclinations to do so.  This draft was - after all - suggested for adoption by the working group, and subsequent changes will therefore be under the change control of the TEAS WG.

 

> On Aug 10, 2020, at 7:59 AM, Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <reza.rokui@nokia.com> wrote:
> 
> Joel
> Please see inline.
>  
> Cheers,
> Reza
>  
> On 2020-08-06, 11:17 AM, "Joel Halpern Direct" <jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com>> wrote:
>  
>     Thank you for commenting the the TSRE question.
>     Let me reprase my question, given the comments...
>  
>     Given that TSRE is strictly technology and infrastructure specific, why
>     is it defined in this document?  Whether we need it or not it seems to
>     be outside the scope of this document.
> [Reza] Since the transport slice definition draft addresses various aspects of the transport slice such transport slice realization were introduced and a result the TRSE was mentioned briefly to allow later drafts to discuss it in details.
> Same is for example for “Transport Slice Controller (TSC)”. This document introduced the TSC concept and again later draft can give more details.
>  
>  
>     Yours,
>     Joel
>  
>     On 8/6/2020 11:12 AM, Rokui, Reza (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) wrote:
>     > Thanks Joel for your comments.
>     > 
>     > Please see inline for TSRE.
>     > 
>     > Reza
>     > 
>     > On 2020-07-12, 11:59 PM, "Teas on behalf of Joel Halpern"
>     > <teas-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
>     > 
>     >      My thanks to the design team for the update to this document.  It is
>     > 
>     >      much improved.
>     > 
>     >      I a  unable to understand the third paragraph of section 4.1.2.  I do
>     > 
>     >      not know what maximum occupancy refers to.  It seems to be talking
>     > about
>     > 
>     >      some kind of notion of objectives applying to subsets of traffic
>     > within
>     > 
>     >      a slice.  But I can't tell.
>     > 
>     >      Appendix A.1 is labeled as discussion, and as such appears to be
>     > trying
>     > 
>     >      to be informative rather than normative.  However, the last
>     > paragraph of
>     > 
>     >      introduces things a customer may ask for (i.e. SLOs) that are not
>     > 
>     >      described in the rest of the document, and do not actually seem to
>     > me to
>     > 
>     >      be appropriate.  I wowuld ask that the last paragraph of section
>     > A.1 be
>     > 
>     >      stricken.
>     > 
>     >      Some minor comments:
>     > 
>     >      At one point the SLA is defined (I believe reasonably)as the contract
>     > 
>     >      5that describes the SLOs with the consequences for missing them.  Then
>     > 
>     >      in section 4.1 it says "all SLOs combine to form the SLA".  Believe
>     > you
>     > 
>     >      mean "form the objective portion of the SLA"  or "contribute to the
>     > SLA"
>     > 
>     >      or something, since the contractual and consequence aspects of the SLA
>     > 
>     >      are outside of the SLOs?
>     > 
>     >      Given that availability is defined in terms of the other SLOs (quite
>     > 
>     >      reasonable) and that some of those may not be directly measurable), it
>     > 
>     >      seems that availability should itself be considered indirectly
>     > measurable?
>     > 
>     >      nit - Given that the earlier text says that this is only an initial
>     > 
>     >      list, there is no need to include a bullet in the aspects that says
>     > 
>     >      "Other objectives could be specified".  It is true.  But has already
>     > 
>     >      been stated above.
>     > 
>     >      In section 4.2 on transport service endpoints, the text seems to say
>     > 
>     >      that an endpoint has a specific kind of connectivity (P2P, P2MP, ...).
>     > 
>     >      It seems perfectly valid for a single TSE to be using both P2P and
>     > P2MP
>     > 
>     >      communication.  It seems rather odd to have to consider it to be two
>     > 
>     >      TSEs.  From later text, it is the slice, not the endpoint, which as a
>     > 
>     >      particular connectivity type.
>     > 
>     >      I wonder if the "Transport Slice Realization endpoint" is useful? 
>     > Given
>     > 
>     >      that many things are in both the sample TSE list and the sample TSRE
>     > 
>     >      list, it is going to be hard to tell them apart.  And as far as I can
>     > 
>     >      tell, the TSRE is internal to the transport, and therefore outside the
>     > 
>     >      scope of this document?  The differentiation in the diagram that
>     > follows
>     > 
>     >      the description does not seem to line up with the description, and
>     > 
>     >      leaves me more confused.
>     > 
>     > [Reza]
>     > 
>     > As mentioned in draft, Transport slice realization endpoints (TSRE) are
>     > allocated and
>     > 
>     > assigned by the network controller during the realization of a
>     >   transport slice and are technology-specific, i.e. they depend on the
>     > 
>     > network technology used during the transport slice realization.
>     > 
>     > Depends on the definition of the transport slice, Transport Slice
>     > endpoints (TSE) and TSRE might be very similar but their object models
>     > are different.
>     > 
>     > Please also see the following draft which addresses the modeling of the
>     > transport slice realization:
>     > 
>     >   * draft-liu-teas-transport-network-slice-yang-01
>     > 
>     > In summary, TRSE are assigned during the transport slice realization and
>     > will be communicated from TSC NBI to higher system “Transport slice
>     > Customer” and identifies how a transport slice is realized in the network.
>     > 
>     > We will add more clarification to the draft.
>     > 
>     >      Yours,
>     > 
>     >      Joel
>     > 
>     >      On 7/12/2020 10:49 PM, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:
>     > 
>     >      >
>     > 
>     >      > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line
>     > Internet-Drafts directories.
>     > 
>     >      >
>     > 
>     >      >
>     > 
>     >      >          Title           : IETF Definition of Transport Slice
>     > 
>     >      >          Authors         : Reza Rokui
>     > 
>     >      >                            Shunsuke Homma
>     > 
>     >      >                            Kiran Makhijani
>     > 
>     >      >                            Luis M. Contreras
>     > 
>     >      >                            Jeff Tantsura
>     > 
>     >      >         Filename        :
>     > draft-nsdt-teas-transport-slice-definition-03.txt
>     > 
>     >      >         Pages           : 21
>     > 
>     >      >         Date            : 2020-07-12
>     > 
>     >      >
>     > 
>     >      > Abstract:
>     > 
>     >      >     This document describes the definition of a slice in the
>     > transport
>     > 
>     >      >     networks and its characteristics.  The purpose here is to bring
>     > 
>     >      >     clarity and a common understanding of the transport slice
>     > concept and
>     > 
>     >      >     describe related terms and their meaning.  It explains how
>     > transport
>     > 
>     >      >     slices can be used in combination with end to end network
>     > slices, or
>     > 
>     >      >     independently.
>     > 
>     >      >
>     > 
>     >      >
>     > 
>     >      > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>     > 
>     >      > 
>     > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nsdt-teas-transport-slice-definition/
>     > 
>     >      >
>     > 
>     >      > There are also htmlized versions available at:
>     > 
>     >      > 
>     > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nsdt-teas-transport-slice-definition-03
>     > 
>     >      > 
>     > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-nsdt-teas-transport-slice-definition-03
>     > 
>     >      >
>     > 
>     >      > A diff from the previous version is available at:
>     > 
>     >      > 
>     > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-nsdt-teas-transport-slice-definition-03
>     > 
>     >      >
>     > 
>     >      >
>     > 
>     >      > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
>     > submission
>     > 
>     >      > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>     > 
>     >      >
>     > 
>     >      > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>     > 
>     >      > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>     > 
>     >      >
>     > 
>     >      >
>     > 
>     >      > _______________________________________________
>     > 
>     >      > I-D-Announce mailing list
>     > 
>     >      > I-D-Announce@ietf.org
>     > 
>     >      > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
>     > 
>     >      > Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
>     > 
>     >      > or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
>     > 
>     >      >
>     > 
>     >      _______________________________________________
>     > 
>     >      Teas mailing list
>     > 
>     >      Teas@ietf.org
>     > 
>     >      https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>     > 
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list
> Teas@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas