Re: [Teas] Network Slicing design team definitions - isolation and resolution

[Jari Arkko <[e-mail]>]

Joel,

Just a sort of a high-level response from my side as well. Without getting to the details I wanted to say:

1/ Thank you for this feedback!

2/ In the design team’s deliberations we actually did find agreement that we need to describe slices in terms of observable requirements rather than implementation details (such as whether you use TDM or something else to implement a guarantee of some sort).

3/ We also agreed on the fact that things can go wrong, and as John points out, there are many things that can go wrong and some of those aren’t really easily separable (like power or particular type of software).

4/ Upon re-reading the text in our draft I’m not entirely sure that points 2 and 3 are as fully reflected there as they should be. This is just my opinion but I think we could improve on that front :-) Again, if we specify things using observable, fundamental characteristics then we should be fine. I realise there are other things in the world, and sometimes people want to use labels that are a bit more imprecise, but I think we should strive to avoid such labels as much as we can.

Jari