Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-contreras-teas-slice-nbi-06

Dhruv Dhody <> Thu, 14 July 2022 12:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56BE0C16ECBC; Thu, 14 Jul 2022 05:36:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.104
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.104 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sRYx6MRKIBGA; Thu, 14 Jul 2022 05:36:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d36]) (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 (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F10FC13493F; Thu, 14 Jul 2022 05:36:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id r70so125066iod.10; Thu, 14 Jul 2022 05:36:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=nPH2kLaGn+rF71WmzlvTgQUCTm36VdeARXSdf2hYgj0=; b=UqQGl0K9lAYAoSYJ4IwSZNnr2R097HtysIpxzxtfRjjR96fGQzQhsoMVYbKFQxvmLU t0lUY0J+pxRxay5eYjXXWIw3X6JzL0Xfc+ESLPhWKqx7YfX0DkQJNnmxmIdECKFWs2pd VvEvQs8+UFVVHqyozQn9boGi0Z5QDsT4rBk4hjMM3dzD85PD88kbz7HGkChzbrgoLBlo zZYeehRL7QlK/NBvBPe75CRMbvbiNdCrXyLXKuteV2m7BivvAndZDpX2UEJRYk3AGeb+ F+Kmpx1RpGzTfzTxmsvoLzDt89P/LZ9iTK2WvjnKOEKag+meJS4IyZBl7bJQ8e603qP5 zI3Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=nPH2kLaGn+rF71WmzlvTgQUCTm36VdeARXSdf2hYgj0=; b=6av/Rbu1zLQaN+dAr/4HylQO3tLOC3QGLfUyuZ1BtvHLZ2VEWiQnMxVRBM/7+lGFr4 WPRuSGIM7kF8Ptkhz0s8kpjHwcv+be1HV2weGcrgydf4DUKreDHPciL3vQmrbSbAB5WB 82Fqpkuts084xSY1yesxrGzy7leRY4vKd/OSllTqvFL9l9yircYxAcmoqbcenC9gb6TB /I0PCf0v/UAADwvCyYjqpMv/fRui5W5U7cMWOP2ET203s4FyAJVUemUzPI9cZNofkFxj 3X+tgLuhwZnbep5ubHfUC5UBGGvPqRFDdJCl7osS3ZSbIkc6m2dk2rIafbIlM4jW5li8 62cQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora9ZfUNX9SdjjacLpwhmCe20o7lRud9THwhJsTv6JUNESIcwJ6bC VEFn65WV7bR+fjjIlcyevC73ieVDSD7fdL4lMws=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1s52V3MO1w1Mnd+c9m5pfecaw2w6+kB8IQ6lmOHjNDmS2yw4a5T6lHWn+30Bv/XFauBVbvYk6nVJQR2M2aMNZM=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6638:2486:b0:33f:85cb:f387 with SMTP id x6-20020a056638248600b0033f85cbf387mr4010427jat.247.1657802161992; Thu, 14 Jul 2022 05:36:01 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Dhruv Dhody <>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2022 18:05:25 +0530
Message-ID: <>
To: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <>
Cc: TEAS WG <>, TEAS WG Chairs <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f9379205e3c32484"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll: draft-contreras-teas-slice-nbi-06
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2022 12:36:04 -0000


I am late, but since the chairs have not yet closed the poll, let me slide
right in :)

I support its adoption so that the version control can move to the WG and
then collectively we could make a call on whether it is worth pursuing RFC
publication or not.

As others have pointed out we need clarity on what this I-D claims to
achieve and how it is related to other WG efforts. It would also be useful
to have a section on gaps in the current framework/YANG based on the
analysis done by this I-D. It also needs to sync up on terminology with the
framework I-D.

After reading the details in section, it was not clear "what is the
key impact for IETF Network Slice?" It would be good to link this with SDP
and AC discussion, otherwise, it is just background information that could
simply be a reference?

 Attributes in don't seem to be very specific to Private 5G and
since we do not list the attributes specified in the public 5G sections and
have a later section on GST, it feels odd! Section could use
description/reference for the attributes.

Hope this helps!


On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 2:37 PM Vishnu Pavan Beeram <>

> All,
> This is start of a *two* week poll on making
> draft-contreras-teas-slice-nbi-06 a TEAS working group document
> []
> Please send email to the list indicating "yes/support" or "no/do not
> support".
> If indicating no, please state your reservations with the document. If
> yes, please also feel free to provide comments you'd like to see
> addressed once the document is a WG document.
> The poll ends July 12th.
> Thank you,
> Pavan and Lou
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list