[Teas] Re: 2nd WG Last Call: draft-ietf-teas-5g-ns-ip-mpls-09 (*one* week)

[[e-mail]]

Hi Greg, all,

Went with the change at https://github.com/boucadair/5g-slice-realization/pull/205/files. Hope there is removes the confusion out there. Thanks.

Cheers,
Med

De : Richard Roberts <[e-mail]>
Envoyé : vendredi 6 septembre 2024 15:56
À : Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>; Vishnu Pavan Beeram <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Cc : TEAS WG <[e-mail]>; TEAS WG Chairs <[e-mail]>
Objet : RE: [Teas] 2nd WG Last Call: draft-ietf-teas-5g-ns-ip-mpls-09 (*one* week)

Hi Greg,

Thanks for reviewing.
We will remove the pitchfork.

regards
R

After a discussion with my colleagues, I found Figure 6 confusing, particularly the part that reflects the relationship between 5G NSO, TN Orchestration, and systems that it contains, i.e., Customer Site Orchestration and RFC 9543 NSC. Some of us interpreted that the down-looking pitchfork indicates that 5G NSO communicates directly with the components of the TN Orchestration. In contrast, others assumed that the demultiplexing of communications from 5G NSO is the function of the TN Orchestration. Although we understand that the figure presents an example, it seems like it can be made more straightforward since the scope of the document is the interactions between RFC 9543 NSC and the Provider Network. Thus, I have two suggestions, and each can clarify Figure 6 and help a reader:
·         Reduce Figure 6 to RFC 9543 NSC and the Provider Network;
·         Alternatively, remove the pitchfork stopping down-looking arrow from 5G NSO at the TN Orchestration (how the TN Orchestration demultiplexes that flow to Customer Site Orchestration and RFC 9543 NSC is outside the scope of the document).

[understood] we believe we





Juniper Business Use Only
From: Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2024 3:14 PM
To: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: TEAS WG <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; TEAS WG Chairs <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [Teas] 2nd WG Last Call: draft-ietf-teas-5g-ns-ip-mpls-09 (*one* week)

[External Email. Be cautious of content]

Dear Authors,
As far as I understand, the second WG LC is closed now. I am looking forward to hearing from you about the comment below.

Regards,
Greg

On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 6:50 AM Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Dear Authors and the WG,
thank you for your work on this document. One more comment (I've sent it on the earlier WG LC thread) to share:
·         After a discussion with my colleagues, I found Figure 6 confusing, particularly the part that reflects the relationship between 5G NSO, TN Orchestration, and systems that it contains, i.e., Customer Site Orchestration and RFC 9543 NSC. Some of us interpreted that the down-looking pitchfork indicates that 5G NSO communicates directly with the components of the TN Orchestration. In contrast, others assumed that the demultiplexing of communications from 5G NSO is the function of the TN Orchestration. Although we understand that the figure presents an example, it seems like it can be made more straightforward since the scope of the document is the interactions between RFC 9543 NSC and the Provider Network. Thus, I have two suggestions, and each can clarify Figure 6 and help a reader:
·         Reduce Figure 6 to RFC 9543 NSC and the Provider Network;
·         Alternatively, remove the pitchfork stopping down-looking arrow from 5G NSO at the TN Orchestration (how the TN Orchestration demultiplexes that flow to Customer Site Orchestration and RFC 9543 NSC is outside the scope of the document).

I appreciate your consideration.

Regards,

Greg

On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 11:28 AM Vishnu Pavan Beeram <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
All,

This starts the 2nd working group last call on
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-5g-ns-ip-mpls/
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-5g-ns-ip-mpls/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CaIVCU1AHACPY8TtdSqPqXSl9V6Neqg-1Tz434O_BAYsJwA0Vy1rfhR2ms1-E7V13neeeD6UdP1FiNoHVkUWUg$>

Please note that the previous last call was for version 4 of the document and several changes have been made to the document since then. The changes have been discussed on the list and a summary presented during the WG session in IETF 120.

As this is a 2nd last call that is primarily focused on changes since the previous last call, it closes in *one" week. The working group last call ends on August 28th, 2024. Please send your comments to the working group mailing list.

A diff (v4-v9) can be found at:
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-teas-5g-ns-ip-mpls-04&url2=draft-ietf-teas-5g-ns-ip-mpls-09&difftype=--html<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-teas-5g-ns-ip-mpls-04&url2=draft-ietf-teas-5g-ns-ip-mpls-09&difftype=--html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CaIVCU1AHACPY8TtdSqPqXSl9V6Neqg-1Tz434O_BAYsJwA0Vy1rfhR2ms1-E7V13neeeD6UdP1FiNqroUYzdQ$>

Thank you,
Pavan and Oscar
ps: The following comment from Greg will be considered as part of this 2nd LC -
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/Pr7hvoB_RS9ZgGIRGEdCf2rn4bE/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/Pr7hvoB_RS9ZgGIRGEdCf2rn4bE/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!CaIVCU1AHACPY8TtdSqPqXSl9V6Neqg-1Tz434O_BAYsJwA0Vy1rfhR2ms1-E7V13neeeD6UdP1FiNrol87_zQ$>
_______________________________________________
Teas mailing list -- [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.