Re: [Teas] Harmonizing draft-ietf-ccamp-yang-otn-slicing and draft-ietf-teas-applicability-actn-slicing

daniel@olddog.co.uk Tue, 02 August 2022 19:14 UTC

Return-Path: <dk@danielking.net>
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 89A21C13CCDE for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Aug 2022 12:14:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.658
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.658 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.248, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=danielking-net.20210112.gappssmtp.com
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 OMpS7nAyzNDu for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Aug 2022 12:14:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x42d.google.com (mail-wr1-x42d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0DE99C1527B7 for <teas@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Aug 2022 12:14:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x42d.google.com with SMTP id z16so18964209wrh.12 for <teas@ietf.org>; Tue, 02 Aug 2022 12:14:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=danielking-net.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=content-language:thread-index:mime-version:message-id:date:subject :in-reply-to:references:cc:to:from:sender:from:to:cc; bh=NSM7H3SJ1aCqqIfA5OCdh3auyYvmZp1yRJ24+vhILXY=; b=DOy8uBicHh2PrGsNOpyDvxBGekiTg0YOVpzJtrfDQ3D4AzBSlrXnC6IPfotPsYitjZ TDRpSDFOP1/uYBBovwsk3s/mFj/L7psqkuBX70kueVzbI/pbN3IE1AUnwoJa1R7yX7ve tm1qNUfya4GAfHiyQTlj1mHl06cFp1oP2VoqjtaCfukCNa+l9gLA1bhAF/asp8rjeWTO YaTMFvj1LOElydPdJtqavkZJJBgfeAw/Y6JagXtMw+57oBzzuwxRoWoYRt4AHSmc9ZlN Zgp5YXy9u4j8CWqf0OkPgFqz6H0Of7Sup2mRzmJeMAq4JpgUB6U0HkluJTAmEqV0veEm fwtw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=content-language:thread-index:mime-version:message-id:date:subject :in-reply-to:references:cc:to:from:sender:x-gm-message-state:from:to :cc; bh=NSM7H3SJ1aCqqIfA5OCdh3auyYvmZp1yRJ24+vhILXY=; b=njZDln+LjY8ZHh60gVEKLK/UxlvZVDv4oD6wqSN+yfv1rP5qKtjAySgvThv+m1Aejw esBgAzMHO+yHkJ0KYftosGoR28oG4sdPolxG7ZZbsGil+kzFDVDK3VryCliJIRAaxefm rzP69TdN3QwvJEHxTqOxrAm8ol+8VLZUgC1kp9juyedke/7m+x6ZYanPPPR4hpn1OW+b V2bNPJ5+/aRdeTYdq07O/xnSTKaN1ZtjgQq749xhVYaG9StJhhszzkXDKuOleuTYVl1+ FyK7r5plAuZMaZgOacl/UGvUkKnRq6PxnBjGG3vbj+T8TRMPtOWHkcsa2R2w3d+z6Blp rlLA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo0eInlXvGlaHQL6JmhpUk8w+1i7XdcTpq7zjZcHk+llji0q/SD5 +XU2McyH5e3eYx9ED1B3oOx7tQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR6FXy+q7GLCf4UL/OAeIXaQOtnsgDODomG9OE/xa31a0gxD23HlZ0gRfzg4NMtRbsGKgXhdjg==
X-Received: by 2002:adf:e542:0:b0:21e:c148:3ef2 with SMTP id z2-20020adfe542000000b0021ec1483ef2mr13929999wrm.533.1659467673915; Tue, 02 Aug 2022 12:14:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from CIPHER ([2a00:23c7:105:2801:ed5e:1218:9834:57d1]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r16-20020a5d4950000000b0021e6277bc50sm19439293wrs.36.2022.08.02.12.14.33 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 02 Aug 2022 12:14:33 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Daniel King <dk@danielking.net>
X-Google-Original-Sender: <dk@danielking.net>
From: <daniel@olddog.co.uk>
To: "'TEAS WG'" <teas@ietf.org>, "'CCAMP'" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Cc: "'Daniele Ceccarelli'" <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>, "'Belotti, Sergio \(Nokia - IT\)'" <sergio.belotti@nokia.com>, "'Italo Busi'" <Italo.Busi@huawei.com>
References: <5cd5f2fbe5b845d291e7263c53d451ce@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <5cd5f2fbe5b845d291e7263c53d451ce@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2022 20:14:32 +0100
Message-ID: <015401d8a6a4$18ca5430$4a5efc90$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0155_01D8A6AC.7A8F3160"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQIJtLD45uvvcTYeRBCJURpB4Dmena053XCw
Content-Language: en-gb
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/s2xFbLfeUs2vD6ka3eMKjDEn8kI>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Harmonizing draft-ietf-ccamp-yang-otn-slicing and draft-ietf-teas-applicability-actn-slicing
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: Tue, 02 Aug 2022 19:14:42 -0000

Hi All, 

 

It seems there was no strong opinion on the question:

 

"Do we need to define a requirement for a new xMI interface at the NBI of
the MDSC in the draft-ietf-teas-applicability-actn-slicing I-D." 

 

We would love to have some feedback from non-authors of
draft-ietf-ccamp-yang-otn-slicing and
draft-ietf-teas-applicability-actn-slicing. 

 

BR, Dan. 

 

From: Italo Busi <Italo.Busi@huawei.com> 
Sent: 16 May 2022 12:33
To: TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>
Cc: ccamp@ietf.org; Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>om>;
'daniel@olddog.co.uk' <daniel@olddog.co.uk>uk>; Belotti, Sergio (Nokia - IT)
<sergio.belotti@nokia.com>
Subject: Harmonizing draft-ietf-ccamp-yang-otn-slicing and
draft-ietf-teas-applicability-actn-slicing

 

As reported during IETF 113 presentations, we have discussed the mapping
between the IETF NSC and the ACTN functional component in
draft-ietf-teas-applicability-actn-slicing and think that the mapping needs
to be updated to reflect the fact that:

*	there is a difference between the customer being defined in ACTN
framework and the consumer being defined in the IETF network slicing
framework
*	the MDSC contains both service related functions (Service
Orchestrator functions as defined in RFC8309) and network related functions
(Network Orchestrator functions as defined in RFC8309) which can be
split/combined on different systems

 

We think that there is the need to define a new xMI interface at the NBI of
the MDSC to address the scenarios where the MDSC is split between SO and NO
functions (see section 4.2 of [RFC8453]).

 

In attachment you can find proposed updates to the figures in
draft-ietf-teas-applicability-actn-slicing-01.

 

If the proposal is acceptable, the authors can update the figures and the
text of the draft accordingly.

 

Daniel, Daniele, Italo and Sergio