Subject: Re: [Netslices] Final Update of COMS BoF Presentation 7

From: Alex Galis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 11:50:39 +0000

Hi Adrian and Gonzalo,

Please find updated presentation 7 for COMS BoF of Thursday 22nd March 2018

Would you be so kind as 

• to upload it to the COMS BoF materials folder

and 

•  already communicated Section 7 would need 10 minutes (5 min presentation and 5 min Q&A). As such additional 5 mins presentation time would be given to Presentation 6 A (i.e. 6A -  Problem Space & Architecture - Liang Geng)

Thank you in advance
Best Regards
Alex

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 15:25:08 +0000

I’m on the agenda under “setting the scene”. I’m working
on my presentation still, but if people are interested in what
direction I plan to take it, I held a similarly themed earlier in
the week in RTGWG, the slides for that were at

    https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/slides-101-rtgwg-sessa-considerations-on-network-virtualization-and-slicing-00

Tomorrow I plan to take this a bit more focused direction
related to 5G slicing. Comments and suggestions much
appreciated.

Jari

---

From: Xavier de Foy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 17:46:33 +0000

Hi Jari,

  Actually a colleague and I wrote a draft on network slicing in 5G some
time ago (focus on 3GPP):
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-defoy-netslices-3gpp-network-slicing-02 .
  This might be slightly out of date but should still more or less be in
sync with 3GPP.
  It is factual for the most part (describing NS in 3GPP/5G), but the
latest version added some potential requirements associated with use cases
from 3GPP in section 7.1.
  So basically, I don't suggest using anything in particular, but maybe
going through the doc can help you with the 3GPP side of 5G NS.

Best Regards,
Xavier.

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 3:25 PM, Jari Arkko <[email-masked]> wrote:

>     https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/slides-
> 101-rtgwg-sessa-considerations-on-network-virtualization-and-slicing-00
>
> _______________________________________________
> Netslices mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netslices
>

---

From: "Flinck, Hannu (Nokia - FI/Espoo)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 10:48:42 +0000

Hello Jari

In the concluding slide you mention: "Connecting the top-down and bottom-up approaches". But the presentation doesn't address that, does it. It is more about general vs. specific rather than top-down vs. bottom-up. How do see these  dimensions/approaches relate? For me they seem to be orthogonal.   

Best regards
Hannu
-----Original Message-----
From: Netslices [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jari Arkko
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 5:25 PM
To: NetSlices <[email-masked]>
Subject: [Netslices] COMS BOF presentations

Jari

---

From: Vishnu Ram <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 16:33:09 +0530

Hi Jari,

Sorry for being late to comment.
i was at your "setting the scenes" presentation and I felt it was quite
well thought-out.
Thank you for that well-balanced view.

I do have the following comments to the presentation
slides-101-rtgwg-sessa-considerations-on-network-virtualization-and-slicing-00

1) slide-3: "Virtualization does not generally affect TCP/IP or
applications":
there are a whole bunch of things which you mention in the previously
"Virtual networks, network function virtualization, software-defined
networking, service chaining" etc.
These definitely seems to affect the applications at least. Especially,
they seems to affect certain deployment assumptions
and operational parameters of applications.
In fact, to keep these apps "un-affected", developers (like me) have to do
extra work :-) on top of such virtualized infra that you mention.

2) slide-4: "Virtualization Tech @ IETF".
Having observed both IETF and non-IETF work for some while,
IMO, it would be good to look at an overall picture of where/how these are
consumed/produced.
Eg: what are the opensource communities doing with these works from IETF?
How are they using them?
Do we tie well with what say ETSI is doing in this space?
You do mention this in slide 10: "How our different pieces fit together": I
would suggest to broaden the definition of "our".

3) slide-5: "Architectural Observations 1 : In many cases, this replaces
the need for protocol mechanisms."
I wonder if I agree.
How about this view: due to the increasing role of software, services need
interoperability and hence the interface between them
need standards.
It would be interesting to hear your views.

4) slide-8: "Architectural Observations 3": "Merely the models + magic
software? ".
Now, this might not be an architectural issue,
but given how important these models are, dont you think it matters the
process and place where such models themselves are developed?
In that sense, I agree with you when you say in slide 10 that Data model
development should be a continued topic @ IETF.
But again, i think data models by themselves are not sufficient, and will
not stand alone, the corresponding interfaces and management of these
have to be worked upon.

5) slide-9:"IETF probably wants to do tools that work across industry as
opposed to only for 5G"
What would you say is an example, other than 5G, which needs this kind of
work?

thanks,
Vishnu.

-- 

thx
Vishnu