Looking agin at the document, I have multiple problems with adoption of
this document.
First, as just discussed, it seems to be laying out an archtiecture, but
that architecture is not consistent with the other work going on in the
IETF (specifically in the routing area, and known to many of
Hi,
I support the adoption of this draft. I think, the current Transport Network
Aware Mobility for 5G draft defines well the framework for mapping the 5G
mobile systems Slice and Service Types (SSTs) to the corresponding underlying
network paths in the mobility domain. This framework allows
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 <
jmh.dir...@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
> It is quite hard for me to understand what is itnended due to the
> terminology differences. It would be helpful before
Dear Hannu,
Indeed you raised this point w.r.t terminology in IETF109 and I responded
we will consider that as appropriate. I would note the following w.r.t
"transport network" aspect:
a. Till last quarter TEAS draft was referring to "transport slices
terminology" -
as in
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.
Also, clarity as to whether we are discussing the service interface (how
to map the 3GPP needs to the services defined by the IETF
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.
As co-author
Support WG adoption.
-Praveen
---
From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
mailto:40cisco@dmarc.ietf.org>>
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 mailto:dmm@ietf.org>>
Hi Kiran,
Thanks for your support and your inputs as a co-authoring member of TEAS
ongoing work.
See in-line [Uma]:
--
Uma C.
On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 5:39 PM Kiran Makhijani wrote:
> Hi Joel,
> The IETF network slices work under teas focuses on control and managing
> slices 'with in' the
Joel,
I should let authors clarify further.
>From what I understood, TN-mobility is non-conflicting to IETF-slice
>definitions/framework. Because, in TEAS, we create a logical IETF slice by
>mapping underlying network infrastructure (IP/optical), mobility document does
>not care about that
Hello
I raised the same concern in the last meeting as Joel now in his mail. The
authors then told that the work is aligned with TEAS. But it seems not to be
clear after all.
It would help to start the alignment by adding a refer to TEAS slicing drafts.
And the use it in the text...
Best
10 matches
Mail list logo
