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

Hi Adrian,

Avoidance of discussion happens everywhere on many topics in the IETF, and as 
we know silence does not equal consensus. We also all know why that occurs. 
Having the list specifically for this topic is to ensure that sane discussion 
does happen, and happens in a location that easy for anyone (esp the IESG) to 
find at some point down the track when (invariably) an ask comes forward about 
a having BOF. So yes, the interested parties do need to self-organize to get 
that "agreed' definition.

Please don't read any weight into the term "agreed IETF definition". This 
mailing list does not get to say this is THE definition for the IETF. the 
wording is to scopes the discussion such that the definition needs to be in 
scope for the IETF. Could it have been said better, yep. Mea culpa. (Although I 
really thought how the IETF forms consensus is well known. Will ensure to be 
far more explicit in future)

Where it goes from here depends on what happens on the mailing list and that is 
simply no different to most of the other bodies of work that comes into the 
IETF.

Cheers
Terry
(Dammit, the single malt is on the top shelf!)

On 17/01/2017, 1:10 PM, "Adrian Farrel" <adrian(_at_)olddog(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk> 
wrote:

    Hello Terry,
    
    This all seems fine and dandy, but there is a disconnect between what you 
say there "discussing a proposed definition" and "presenting a better formed 
definition to the IETF" (admirable intentions for a mailing list), and 
"determining an agreed IETF definition" as indicated by some of the 
participants on the list as well as in the revised mailing list announcement.
    
    I hope I am not needlessly picking at words, but it seems that this 
disconnect could be the source of some future uncomfortable moments.
    
    As Lou mentions, the topic seems to have avoided discussion on the TEAS 
list where it was invited to take place. That need not be a bad thing if the 
proponents need to self-organise a bit. And I see no harm in providing an 
archived mailing list under IETF "note well" terms for that self-organisation 
to take place. It's just about setting expectations of where the results of the 
organisation need to be taken.
    
    Cheers,
    Adrian
    (The benefits of a low bar include being able to reach your drink while in 
a sedentary position)
    
    > 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