[Teas] Comments on draft-lee-teas-actn-5g-transport-00

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Wed, 17 July 2019 11:45 UTC

Return-Path: <bill.wu@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2761112032C for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 04:45:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dAkJGa8vPV8N for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 04:45:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com []) (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 EEC1A120229 for <teas@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 04:45:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from LHREML713-CAH.china.huawei.com (unknown []) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id AB382FA514CB8C393CF4 for <teas@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 12:45:14 +0100 (IST)
Received: from NKGEML411-HUB.china.huawei.com ( by LHREML713-CAH.china.huawei.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 12:45:14 +0100
Received: from NKGEML513-MBS.china.huawei.com ([]) by nkgeml411-hub.china.huawei.com ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 19:44:59 +0800
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: "teas@ietf.org" <teas@ietf.org>
CC: Young Lee <leeyoung@futurewei.com>
Thread-Topic: Comments on draft-lee-teas-actn-5g-transport-00
Thread-Index: AdU8jH9A7PWsxUc2RqO3Az1a/mEptw==
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2019 11:44:59 +0000
Message-ID: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABAA4A00C1B@nkgeml513-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABAA4A00C1Bnkgeml513mbschi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/qimyRXE5kTd_OnFmdWUE0cG2-hY>
Subject: [Teas] Comments on draft-lee-teas-actn-5g-transport-00
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, 17 Jul 2019 11:45:20 -0000

Hi, Authors:
Interesting work, two quick comments are:
1.Section 4.1 of draft-lee-teas-actn-5g-transport-00 said:
The MTNC represents a transport network slice, QoS configuration for a transport path/VN between two 3GPP user plane functions (e.g., between gNB and UPF and between UPF-ULCL and UPF-PSA) and between UPF-PSA and Application Servers (AS). The MTNC include a set of requirements, such as quality of service (QoS) requirements, class of service (CoS), a resilience requirement, and/or an isolation requirement, and so on, according to which transport resources of a transport network are provisioned for routing traffic between two service end points.
How does MTNC relate to 5QI and DSCP? How is the problem solved without MTNC proposal today?
2. The relationship between 3GPP slice and Transport slice is N:M, How N 3GPP slice is mapped to M Transport with MTNC identifier?

-Qin Wu