Hi,
While we all are holding our drinks in the low bar position waiting for the
outcome, as Lou and Adrian noted, work is continuing on in both teas (where
they now explicitly use the term network slices to help those not familiar with
the work) and detnet. So advocates of this work, if interested in real-time
progress, should realize as that famous quote goes "you've got to know when to
hold'em, know when to fold'em" or there won't be enough time to have impact
now. Advice myself, the Chairs, authors, and others already relayed when the
list was first discussed.
It's advice for any new mailing list kickoff - while herding, be sure to
participate in work on-going.
Deborah
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Adrian
Farrel
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 10:11 PM
To: 'Terry Manderson' <terry(_dot_)manderson(_at_)icann(_dot_)org>
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: New Non-WG Mailing List: NetSlices - Network Slicing
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