Re: [Teas] WG adoption - draft-nsdt-teas-transport-slice-definition - Appendix

["Luis M. Contreras" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jie, Joel, all,

Just to share my view. The idea of isolation is intrinsically related to
the notion of slice in the industry, and as such it should be covered in
the definitions draft when referring to transport slices.

The development of what isolation implies, in practical terms, could go to
the framework draft or to any other specific document, and for sure we can
expect references to degrees of isolation achieved in the mapping of
slicing mechanisms to distinct transport technologies through the SBI of
the TSC.

Not covering isolation at all, basically makes the work on transport
slicing incomplete from an operator’s perspective.

In that sense I support keeping the text on isolation (as an annex or in
the main part of the document). For sure the text can be always improved,
but as it is now is a sufficiently generic definition to facilitate the
development of its scope when applied to transport slicing in any other
document.

Best regards,

Luis


El vie., 21 ago. 2020 a las 10:26, Dongjie (Jimmy) (<[e-mail]>)
escribió:

> Hi Joel,
>
> Thanks for your clarification about the procedure.
>
> What I meant is to provide some background about the design team's
> discussion, which may help the WG to review and give comments on this
> draft. Of course the decision will be made by the WG.
>
> One of the reasons of keeping the isolation discussion in this draft is
> that isolation has been considered as one of the characteristics of network
> slicing in most of the related standards and publications, and it would be
> incomplete if the definition draft does not touch this. And in IETF history
> isolation has been considered as one requirement of VPNs, the discussion is
> necessary for explaining the relationship and difference between network
> slice and VPNs. Also note that in the last paragraph of the appendix, it
> tries to separate the requirements on isolation from several possible
> realization mechanism, which makes this description reasonably generic.
>
> Best regards,
> Jie
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joel Halpern Direct [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Friday, August 21, 2020 11:28 AM
> > To: Dongjie (Jimmy) <[e-mail]>; Kiran Makhijani
> > <[e-mail]>; Vishnu Pavan Beeram
> > <[e-mail]>; TEAS WG <[e-mail]>
> > Subject: Re: [Teas] WG adoption -
> draft-nsdt-teas-transport-slice-definition -
> > Appendix
> >
> > The consensus of the design team is relevant as a recommendation to the
> > WG, but otherwise is not relevant for whether the WG should agree.  In
> > terms of WG adoption, the design team draft has the same status as any
> > other individual draft. The WG comes to its conclusion.
> >
> > There is no obligation for the WG to retain the text from the appendix
> > anywhere.  In particular, the WG is under no obligation to retain the
> last
> > paragraph of teh appendix anywhere.
> >
> > I have not seen any good argument for retaining the text.  It does not
> seem
> > to add to or even fit with the purpose of the definitions draft.
> > If anything, it is confusing at it seems to say "this is not a parameter
> / this is
> > a parameter"
> >
> > Yours,
> > Joel
> >
> > On 8/20/2020 11:17 PM, Dongjie (Jimmy) wrote:
> > > Hi Joel,
> > >
> > > In the design team there were several rounds of discussion about the
> > content in the appendix and where it should be placed. The current text
> in
> > the appendix reflects the consensus of the design team, although some
> > minor edits were not included yet.
> > >
> > > As for whether some of the text in appendix will be moved to the
> > framework document, currently the design team has no specific opinion
> > about this, and feedbacks from WG are appreciated. While as Kiran
> > mentioned, description and discussion about isolation is needed in the
> NS-DT
> > documents.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Jie
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Teas [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Joel M.
> > >> Halpern
> > >> Sent: Friday, August 21, 2020 7:00 AM
> > >> To: Kiran Makhijani <[e-mail]>; Vishnu Pavan Beeram
> > >> <[e-mail]>; TEAS WG <[e-mail]>
> > >> Subject: Re: [Teas] WG adoption -
> > >> draft-nsdt-teas-transport-slice-definition - Appendix
> > >>
> > >> Since I do not think that the material in the appendix is useful, I
> > >> for one will not push for adding it to the Framework.  You are
> > >> welcome to dabate adding it to the framework with the rest of the WG.
> > >> But it does not belong in the definitions draft.
> > >>
> > >> Yours,
> > >> Joel
> > >>
> > >> On 8/20/2020 5:20 PM, Kiran Makhijani wrote:
> > >>> Hi Joel,
> > >>> I am ok to remove some part from Appendix only if it is included in
> > >>> the
> > >> framework first.
> > >>>
> > >>> But for the TSRE, I have proposed clearer and shorter text that they
> > >>> are not
> > >> visible to the consumer of a transport slices. One of the purpose of
> > >> definitions document is 'define' common terminology in the scope of
> > >> transport slices, and all we are saying is that when realizing a
> > >> transport slice, things TSEs will map to are called TSREs.
> > >>> I am not able to see the drawback of saying so.
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks
> > >>> Kiran
> > >>>
> > >>>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>>> From: Joel Halpern Direct <[e-mail]>
> > >>>> Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2020 1:19 PM
> > >>>> To: Kiran Makhijani <[e-mail]>; Vishnu Pavan Beeram
> > >>>> <[e-mail]>; TEAS WG <[e-mail]>
> > >>>> Subject: Re: [Teas] WG adoption -
> > >>>> draft-nsdt-teas-transport-slice-definition
> > >>>>
> > >>>> No, your replies did not in any way address my concerns.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I would suggest removing the references to TSRE and more
> > >>>> importantly removing appendix A.1, or at least the last part of the
> > appendix.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Yours,
> > >>>> Joel
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On 8/20/2020 2:54 PM, Kiran Makhijani wrote:
> > >>>>> Hi Joel,
> > >>>>> After having replied to your comments, we have not heard further
> > >>>>> if they
> > >>>> were convincing.
> > >>>>> Please let us know.
> > >>>>> Thanks
> > >>>>> Kiran
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>>>>> From: Teas <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern
> > >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 9:04 AM
> > >>>>>> To: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <[e-mail]>; TEAS WG
> > >>>>>> <[e-mail]>
> > >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Teas] WG adoption -
> > >>>>>> draft-nsdt-teas-transport-slice-definition
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Without repairs to the issues I have raised on the email list, I
> > >>>>>> do not think this document should be adopted as a WG document.
> > >>>>>> We are close, but not quite there.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Yours,
> > >>>>>> Joel
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On 8/19/2020 11:50 AM, Vishnu Pavan Beeram wrote:
> > >>>>>>> All,
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> This is start of a *three* week poll on making
> > >>>>>>> draft-nsdt-teas-transport-slice-definition-03 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 September 9th (extra week to account for vacation
> > >> season).
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Thanks,
> > >>>>>>> Pavan and Lou
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>>>>> Teas mailing list
> > >>>>>>> [e-mail]
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>
> > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fww
> > w.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>
> > ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fteas&amp;data=02%7C01%7Ckiranm%40
> > f
> > >>>>>> utur
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>
> > ewei.com%7Cf26ab959470747a36b2808d84459a351%7C0fee8ff2a3b24018
> > 9
> > >>>>>> c753a1d
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>
> > 5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637334499094612048&amp;sdata=%2FGSlz2Q4%
> > 2B
> > >>>>>> RAlZTXBv5
> > >>>>>>> XlCZ9YKaUKQ7C4IUIgdQDVJ%2Bk%3D&amp;reserved=0
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>>>> Teas mailing list
> > >>>>>> [e-mail]
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>
> > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fww
> > w
> > >>>>>> .i
> > >>>>
> > >>
> > etf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fteas&amp;data=02%7C01%7Ckiranm%40f
> > u
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>
> > turewei.com%7Cf26ab959470747a36b2808d84459a351%7C0fee8ff2a3b24
> > 01
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>
> > 89c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637334499094612048&amp;sdata=%2F
> > G
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>
> > Slz2Q4%2BRAlZTXBv5XlCZ9YKaUKQ7C4IUIgdQDVJ%2Bk%3D&amp;reserved=
> > 0
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>>> Teas mailing list
> > >>>>> [e-mail]
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>
> > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fww
> > w.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>
> > ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fteas&amp;data=02%7C01%7Ckiranm%40
> > f
> > >>>> utur
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>
> > ewei.com%7C7bb861e35ac84653b62208d8454659ac%7C0fee8ff2a3b24018
> > 9
> > >>>> c753a1d
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>
> > 5591fedc%7C1%7C1%7C637335515772670726&amp;sdata=MZQKraVa8fj3
> > BL
> > >>>> sLRq9T9a
> > >>>>> Ypp3C%2Bu1w9c7DgIVE6kE0%3D&amp;reserved=0
> > >>>>>
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Teas mailing list
> > >> [e-mail]
> > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>


-- 
___________________________________________
Luis M. Contreras
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Global CTIO unit / Telefonica