Hi Joel,

I would let John reply to you further , but a quick comment:

--
Uma C.

On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 2:40 PM Joel Halpern Direct <
[email protected]> wrote:

> It is quite hard for me to understand what is itnended due to the
> terminology differences.  It would be helpful before adoption if there
> were better alignment.
>

[Uma]:  As I noted in the other response, I am afraid, even the latest
change in terminology from 'Transport Slice' to 'IETF Network Slice'  (
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nsdt-teas-ietf-network-slice-definition-02
)
             may not capture  the full scope here.

>
> Also, clarity as to whether we are discussing the service interface (how
> to map the 3GPP needs to the services defined by the IETF network
> slicing abstraction) or the de3livery mechanisms (how to use various
> IETF technologies to deliver the services defined by the abstractions
> and mapped to the 3GPP structures.


[Uma]: Obviously not the delivery mechanisms as you noted it can cross many
WGs from
LSR (for routing), TEAS, PCE (for related-TE stuff),  or RTGWG (IP fast
reroute) to data plane (6Man, Spring, MPLS etc).


> I would not expect DMM to need to
> get into how to map to the mechanisms,


[Uma]: I am not sure why. We saw this is the most appropriate place when we
started this work way back in 2018 (00 version, predates TEAS slicing
design team started with a wider scope for generic slicing), given the
mobility domain expertise and  many 3GPP/IETF related items being  worked
out here
            like -
                   a. 3GPP User plane work
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis/
                   b. SR work which can co-exist with GTP based 3GPP user
plane and vatious inter-working scenarios in
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane/
                   c. While, not directly related to this sub-opic, another
important work like
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmm-fpc-cpdp/

Again, as you pointed out TEAS has produced many pioneering works
applicable here are already being referred here and make sure to align in
future  wherever applicable.

Many Thx,
--
Uma C.

as that is an ever-evolving
> domain and one that is dealt with by the various domain WGs (TEAS, MPLS,
> SPRING, ...)
>
> Yours,
> Joel
>
> On 1/5/2021 5:33 PM, Kaippallimalil John wrote:
> > Joel,
> > Commenting as an author:
> > I too agree that the draft should use terminology on transport and
> slicing that TEAS defines so that there is consistency. We can either add
> it in the next revision/or put place holders now.
> >
> > Given that, my view is that the work in TEAS and DMM are complementary.
> >
> > TEAS defines transport and slicing applicable across various domains and
> solutions in a more generic fashion, while the DMM draft would provide how
> to apply it in a 3GPP context.
> > There isn't a 1:1 mapping between TEAS /IETF slice offered to the 3GPP
> provider, and a slice which the 3GPP provider provisions for its subscriber
> (UE).
> > The focus of the DMM draft is to define how a UE/3GPP transport packet
> (GTP packet across F1/W1, N3, N9, for a slice defined between 3GPP provider
> and subscriber) should be mapped to various transport network segments (SR,
> MPLS, IP, L2 etc).
> >
> > Regards,
> > John
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dmm <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern
> > Sent: Monday, January 04, 2021 6:23 PM
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of
> draft-clt-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-08 as a WG document
> >
> > Hmmm.
> >
> > It seems to me that this document ought to align with the ongoing work
> in the TEAS working group that is attempting to define terminology and
> framework (and then any necessary protocol mechanisms) for IETF network
> slices.  That work is explicitly intended to support 3GPP end-to-end
> network slices.
> >
> > First, the discussion there exlicitly conluded that the term "Transport"
> > was confusing and misleading.  Which is why the work is now called IETF
> network slicing.
> >
> > Second, it seems that we want one IETF framework for this, not two
> competing frameworks.  Why is DMM doing this separately.  It seems to fall
> squarely into CCAMP and TEAS.  I presume we want a solution that works for
> 3GPP and works for other use cases?
> >
> > Yours,
> > Joel M. Halpern
> >
> > On 1/4/2021 7:11 PM, Linda Dunbar wrote:
> >> Support WG adoption.
> >>
> >> Linda Dunbar
> >>
> >> -------------------
> >> From: *Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)* <[email protected]
> >> <mailto:[email protected]>>
> >> Date: Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 10:45 AM
> >> Subject: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-clt-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-08
> >> as a WG document
> >> To: dmm <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
> >>
> >> Folks:
> >>
> >> The authors of the document, Transport Network aware Mobility for 5G,
> >> have presented the proposal and the need for standardization in
> >> multiple IETF WG meetings. There have been good amount of discussions
> >> in the mailers and there is some level of interest for the work from
> >> the community. We are therefore considering the adoption of this
> >> document as a DMM WG document, to be moved on Informational Standards
> track.
> >>
> >> *Transport Network aware Mobility for 5G*
> >>
> >> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftool
> >> s.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-clt-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-08&amp;data=04%7C0
> >> 1%7Cjohn.kaippallimalil%40futurewei.com%7C5c225b50684e46709e2108d8b110
> >> 1135%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637454029863264662%7
> >> CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1
> >> haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&amp;sdata=nMZamYoSrcrbkf0cipy5f8UTqedSBdHb7
> >> Wx5%2F2nUqkI%3D&amp;reserved=0
> >> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftoo
> >> ls.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-clt-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-08&amp;data=04%7C
> >> 01%7Cjohn.kaippallimalil%40futurewei.com%7C5c225b50684e46709e2108d8b11
> >> 01135%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637454029863264662%
> >> 7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik
> >> 1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&amp;sdata=nMZamYoSrcrbkf0cipy5f8UTqedSBdHb
> >> 7Wx5%2F2nUqkI%3D&amp;reserved=0>
> >>
> >> With this background, we would like to ask the WG to provide some
> >> feedback on their interest for this work. Please provide substantial
> >> comments as why this SHOULD be adopted, or why it SHOULD NOT be adopted.
> >> If there is interest, and if there are no other concerns from
> >> AD/IESG/Others, then we may take up this work.
> >>
> >> The adoption call will end on 18th of January, 2021.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >>
> >> DMM WG Chairs
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> dmm mailing list
> >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> >> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.
> >> ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fdmm&amp;data=04%7C01%7Cjohn.kaippallim
> >> alil%40futurewei.com%7C5c225b50684e46709e2108d8b1101135%7C0fee8ff2a3b2
> >> 40189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637454029863274628%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZs
> >> b3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D
> >> %7C3000&amp;sdata=Wox%2B4qgSrNicZW7Nu4fYeg8L5kc2mcFk6LHcMU6RpLM%3D&amp
> >> ;reserved=0
> >> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww
> >> .ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fdmm&amp;data=04%7C01%7Cjohn.kaippalli
> >> malil%40futurewei.com%7C5c225b50684e46709e2108d8b1101135%7C0fee8ff2a3b
> >> 240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637454029863274628%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZ
> >> sb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3
> >> D%7C3000&amp;sdata=Wox%2B4qgSrNicZW7Nu4fYeg8L5kc2mcFk6LHcMU6RpLM%3D&am
> >> p;reserved=0>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> dmm mailing list
> >> [email protected]
> >> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.
> >> ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fdmm&amp;data=04%7C01%7Cjohn.kaippallim
> >> alil%40futurewei.com%7C5c225b50684e46709e2108d8b1101135%7C0fee8ff2a3b2
> >> 40189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637454029863274628%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZs
> >> b3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D
> >> %7C3000&amp;sdata=Wox%2B4qgSrNicZW7Nu4fYeg8L5kc2mcFk6LHcMU6RpLM%3D&amp
> >> ;reserved=0
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > dmm mailing list
> > [email protected]
> >
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fdmm&amp;data=04%7C01%7Cjohn.kaippallimalil%40futurewei.com%7C5c225b50684e46709e2108d8b1101135%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637454029863274628%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&amp;sdata=Wox%2B4qgSrNicZW7Nu4fYeg8L5kc2mcFk6LHcMU6RpLM%3D&amp;reserved=0
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmm mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>
_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm

Reply via email to