Re: New Non-WG Mailing List: NetSlices - Network Slicing

Since you asked Adrian :)

I granted approval of this list, as a list, so that the definition of network 
slicing could be discussed in an IETF context.

Really, it boils down to the (on list) discussion of what is a proposed network 
slicing definition that could see the IETF doing work on. So really about 
presenting a better formed definition to the IETF, for the IETF to consider at 
some future point in time. As we know with most "I have a problem that I think 
the IETF should work on" proposals we tend to ask for the problem to be defined 
in a way that does communicate the depth and breadth of the issue or the idea 
before a BOF is considered. This is where I see network slicing now. Showing 
that this very amorphous concept has the hope of some agreed shape and also 
that there are sufficient bodies to form that shape, whatever it is.

As a mailing list (and JUSTa mailing list!) the work for the interested parties 
on that mailing list is to try to put words together that is actually 
meaningful in the IETF context. To be brutally honest I have doubts that this 
is possible from what I read to date but I do commit (as AD) to allowing 
discussion to occur as I'm neither the magistrate of taste nor the gate of 
interest.

Cheers
Terry

On 14/01/2017, 3:37 AM, "ietf on behalf of Adrian Farrel" 
<ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org on behalf of 
adrian(_at_)olddog(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk> wrote:

    Thanks Stewart and Alex.
    
    > This list is intended for discussion of network slicing to determine
    > an agreed IETF definition of the term Network Slicing, problems and
    > gaps to be covered with an aim to facilitate interoperation across
    > different operator and vendor solutions. The list also determines (and
    > assimilates) which elements of the slicing problems are already
    > covered by existing IETF designs or work in progress.
    
    It's good to discuss stuff.
    
    How will agreement of "an IETF definition" be measured?
    Or maybe you mean to attempt to agree a definition among the people 
subscribed to the list and propose that as a definition for use by the IETF?
    But still, who on the list will call consensus?
    
    Why is this something to be petty about?
    Because I need to know whether this is a list I have to join and monitor in 
case I don't agree the definition, or whether that definition will come up for 
IETF review in the normal way.
    
    Perhaps the AD who granted this list with this charter could speak up?
    
    Adrian

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature