[Teas] Re: NRP RE: Re: Late WGLC review of draft-ietf-teas-5g-ns-ip-mpls

[[e-mail]]

Hi Tom, all

> <tp>
> English is a wonderfully expressive language capable of creating
> great works of literature by its ambiguity. I think that here
> 'and' is ambiguous.  In a mathematical or scientific context,
> then yes, 'and' is like the mathematical boolean requiring both
> sides to be true for the result to be true.  In common English
> parlance, 'and' can be just a synonym for 'or'.  In writing an
> engineering specification, then it is worth spelling out which
> meaning is intended IMHO.  Thus if this were 'both ... and ...'
> then I think that the boolean meaning is indicated. 'and' on its
> own is capable of misinterpretation.  I do not see the same
> ambiguity with 'or'.

English is my fourth language, so all these subtleties are good to know. So, Thank you.

I don't think "or" does make sense in this specific context because:

* Saying that the slice realization can be unambiguously defined as "applying certain ." does not bring much value as realizing anything in the network is about applying some techniques/tools in the network.

* Also, partitioning only does not realize a slice because many tweaking is needed to bind flows to a partition + control how these flows will stay within a partition, etc.

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : tom petch <[e-mail]>
> Envoyé : dimanche 2 juin 2024 11:35
> À : Krzysztof Szarkowicz
> <kszarkowicz=[e-mail]>; Adrian Farrel
> <[e-mail]>
> Cc : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <[e-mail]>;
> TEAS WG <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Objet : Re: [Teas] Re: NRP RE: Re: Late WGLC review of draft-
> ietf-teas-5g-ns-ip-mpls
> 
> 
> From: Krzysztof Szarkowicz
> <kszarkowicz=[e-mail]>
> Sent: 31 May 2024 20:38
> 
> Hi Adrian,
> 
> Please see inline.
> 
> Cheers
> Krzysztof
> 
> On May 31, 2024, at 17:25, Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> 
> [External Email. Be cautious of content]
> 
> Thanks Krzysztof,
> 
> A bit of careful snipping.
> 
> AF> Basically, we are ping-ponging between "It's an NRP" and
> "It's a slice."
> 
> [Krzysztof] I don't think so, we are ping-ponging. We have
> constantly stated that 'transport plane'/'transfer plane' is
> neither NRP, nor slice.
> 
> According to RFC 9543 slice is:
> 
> IETF Network Slice:
> The realization of the service in the provider's network achieved
> by partitioning network resources and by applying certain tools
> and techniques within the network ...>
> 
> Where do you see, that for example flex-algo 128 using IGP metric
> for path calculation and flex-algo 129 using latency metric for
> path calculation results in 'partitioning network resources'?
> What resources and how are partitioned in this case?
> 
> [AF] I don't see it as partitioning beyond "using some resources
> and not others".
> [AF] But I do see it as "applying certain tools and techniques
> within the network."
> [AF] So the "and" in the text you quote does not mean "you must
> partition the network resources such that only some of them are
> available for the network slice". I think it means "there are a
> set of things available to you when you realize the service:
> these include partitioning the resources, applying tools,
> applying techniques."
> 
> [Krzysztof] I am not native English speaker. However, my
> understanding of 'and' is that both expressions (expression on
> the left hand side from 'and', and expression on the right hand
> side from the 'and') must be valid for the result to be valid. In
> fact, I have consulted couple of my scripts to be sure, that and
> I can confirm, that both expressions must be true for the result
> to be true. As the text is formulated today in RFC 9543, in order
> to call something 'slice', both 'partitioning network resources'
> and 'applying certain tools and techniques' must be fulfilled.
> Hence, the 'transport/transfer plane' cannot be called 'slice',
> based on current text in RFC 9543, as it doesn't involve any
> partitioning of network resources. Multiple 'transport/transfer
> planes' use the same resources, and not some 'other resources'.
> 
> <tp>
> English is a wonderfully expressive language capable of creating
> great works of literature by its ambiguity. I think that here
> 'and' is ambiguous.  In a mathematical or scientific context,
> then yes, 'and' is like the mathematical boolean requiring both
> sides to be true for the result to be true.  In common English
> parlance, 'and' can be just a synonym for 'or'.  In writing an
> engineering specification, then it is worth spelling out which
> meaning is intended IMHO.  Thus if this were 'both ... and ...'
> then I think that the boolean meaning is indicated. 'and' on its
> own is capable of misinterpretation.  I do not see the same
> ambiguity with 'or'.
> 
> HTH
> 
> Tom Petch
> 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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.