[Teas] Re: IETF 120 TEAS WG Session - Draft minutes posted

[Vishnu Pavan Beeram <[e-mail]>]

John, Hi!



Just to clarify, the merge discussion that Sergio is referring to in his
email is with regards to bringing in relevant content from
draft-barguil-teas-network-slice-instantiation (individual draft) into
draft-ietf-teas-ns-controller-models (WG draft). Please refer to the
meeting recording for more context.


This “merge” discussion has no bearing on the progress of
draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang.



Regards,

-Pavan

On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 2:26 AM John Mullooly (jmullool) <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Vishnu and WG,
>
>
>
> I did not attend that last meeting, so this issue is new for me. The
> network-slice-nbi-yang draft has been thru WGLC with only one
>
> nit raised by the document shepherd (Vishnu) on re-mapping several
> performance metric groupings to the te-type model
>
> (and I believe Bo has made these changes).  My view is that the community
> has been eagerly waiting for this draft to finalize to RFC
>
> so that implementations can begin to be reconciled accordingly so our
> industry can actually start realizing RFC 9543 slices.
>
>
>
> I can see merits on the complementary “topology” slice model for Type 2 VN provider use (as discussed in teas-ns-controller-models &
>
> Network Slice Topology YANG Data Model), but I think of these as advanced
> provider use-cases and in contrast to the more simplified principle
>
> where the network topology is “a black box” (Type 1 VN) and the slice-nbi model is used to provide the external user/customer an
>
> outcome/result/intent model that is technology agnostic (and as far as the customer cares network topology agnostic) as they simply want the
>
> expected SLA/SLO/SLE met for their connectivity.
>
>
>
> My view here is that I think it makes practical sense to keep these drafts separate and thus modular, where the topology draft can reference/augment
>
> the nbi-yang-draft (as the team has already done).
>
>  This would provide flexibility going forward for adding these advanced Type 2 VN provider-based slice use cases where (pieces of) the network topology
>
> can be exposed, but it’s unlikely Type 2 VN will be the primary use case for customer facing slice services.
>
>
>
> This approach will not delay the slice-nbi-yang draft from being published so the community can begin leveraging a Type 1 VN
>
> YANG model for framework RFC 9543 immediately.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> John
>
>
>
>
> Cisco Confidential
>
> *From: *Vishnu Pavan Beeram <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Tuesday, July 30, 2024 at 1:20 PM
> *To: *"Sergio Belotti (Nokia)" <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *"[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, TEAS
> WG <[e-mail]>, TEAS WG Chairs <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *[Teas] Re: IETF 120 TEAS WG Session - Draft minutes posted
>
>
>
> Sergio,
>
>
>
> Thanks. Your comment about the larger scope of
> draft-ietf-teas-ns-controller-models is noted. But as you point out, the
> discussion on merging the two drafts is still very much valid. It is
> something that we would look to explore before the next meeting.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> -Pavan
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 9:00 PM Sergio Belotti (Nokia) <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi Pavan,
>
> I di not realize that during the meeting, I’m sorry for that, but
> regarding the draft
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-ns-controller-models/02/
> , there is a sentence in the minute that does not correspond to the purpose
> of the draft.
>
> The sentence is “Vishnu Pavan Beeram: This is a WG adopted document that
> focuses on the models at the SBI of the NSC, while the next document on the
> agenda is
>
> focusing on the models applicable at the NBI of the NSC; have you consider
> merging these two drafts?
>
>
>
> Luis Contreras: It could make sense to do the merge. “
>
> I do not think (as co-author of the draft) our purpose was to discuss
> relationship with SBI models , as well represented in the first slide of
> Luis’s presentation (the two red ellipses are related both to
> barguil-teas-netowrk-slice-instantiation nothing to do with  draft
> ns-controller)
>
> So, while the discussion on possible merging is still valid, but the real
> context is in my view different , i.e. not SBI vs. NBI of NSC.
>
> Obviously the report should show what really discussed in the meeting , so
> , if it is the case my note can be considered a post-meeting comment.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> BR, Sergio
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Vishnu Pavan Beeram <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 30, 2024 3:47 PM
> *To:* [e-mail]
> *Cc:* TEAS WG <[e-mail]>; TEAS WG Chairs <[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* [Teas] Re: IETF 120 TEAS WG Session - Draft minutes posted
>
>
>
>
>
> *CAUTION:* This is an external email. Please be very careful when
> clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for
> additional information.
>
>
>
> Thanks, Med.
>
>
>
> Your chat comment has been captured in
> https://notes.ietf.org/s/notes-ietf-120-teas. We'll wait till the end of
> the week and then upload a revised version of the minutes to the
> datatracker.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> -Pavan and Oscar
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 12:58 PM <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi Pavan, all,
>
>
>
> I have one comment about this part
>
>
>
> ==
>
> Joel Halpern（chat）：It is not clear to me what it would mean for this to
>
> be a WG Informational draft. Such a status would seem to imply that the
>
> IETF is recommending this approach to 3GPP.
>
> =
>
>
>
> I’d like we record also in the minutes the clarification I provided in the
> chat that the intended consumers of the draft are operators, not the 3GPP.
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Med
>
>
>
> *De :* Vishnu Pavan Beeram <[e-mail]>
> *Envoyé :* mardi 30 juillet 2024 02:20
> *À :* TEAS WG <[e-mail]>
> *Cc :* TEAS WG Chairs <[e-mail]>
> *Objet :* [Teas] IETF 120 TEAS WG Session - Draft minutes posted
>
>
>
> A draft of the minutes from the IETF 119 TEAS WG session has been posted:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/120/materials/minutes-120-teas-01
>
>
>
> Please review and send comments/corrections to the list.
>
>
> The session recording is available at:
>
> https://play.conf.meetecho.com/Playout/?session=IETF120-TEAS-20240725-1630
>
>
>
> Regards,
> - TEAS WG Chairs
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> 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.
>
>