Skip to main content

Applicability of Abstraction and Control of Traffic Engineered Networks (ACTN) to IETF Network Slicing
draft-ietf-teas-applicability-actn-slicing-10

Yes

Jim Guichard

No Objection

Erik Kline
Zaheduzzaman Sarker

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.

Jim Guichard
Yes
Erik Kline
No Objection
John Scudder
No Objection
Comment (2024-08-22 for -09) Sent
Thanks for the high-quality document.

One minor nit on Section 2.1,

   Network resources need to be allocated and dedicated for use by a
   specific network slice service, or they may be shared among multiple
   slice services.

I don't think something "need[s] to be" allocated if it also "may be shared", right? s/need to/can/ seems like it would be right.
Murray Kucherawy
No Objection
Comment (2024-08-21 for -09) Sent
Section 1.1 defines "Infrastructure Resources" but that term doesn't exist (at least in that form) in this document.
Paul Wouters
No Objection
Comment (2024-08-21 for -09) Sent
The document title would be more accurate if it said "IETF Network Slicing". The document does explain this later but I think it would be useful for people skimming titles of RFCs to immediately know this is about IETF Network Slicing and not 3GPP Network Slicing.
Roman Danyliw
No Objection
Comment (2024-08-19 for -07) Not sent
Thank you to Peter Yee for the GENART review.
Zaheduzzaman Sarker
No Objection
Éric Vyncke
No Objection
Comment (2024-08-19 for -07) Sent
# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-teas-applicability-actn-slicing-07

Thank you for the work put into this document. May I add that I was impressed by the quality of the writing (it is clear, detailed, and easy to read)?

Please find below one blocking some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education).

Special thanks to Vishnu Pavan Beeram for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus and the justification of the intended status.

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

# COMMENTS (non-blocking)

## Many informative references to drafts

There are (too?) many informative references to IETF drafts; while these I-Ds are adopted by WG, I wonder whether this I-D should be delayed until these informative drafts are published... This suggestion is to ensure that the value of this document is not compromised if the contents of these referenced drafts is heavily changed or even worse they are never published.

## Section 1

While I know about the sensitivities around "network slice" term, this section perhaps overdoes it to clarify "IETF network slices".

## Section 2.3

Should packet drop be listed in the performance isolation bullet (even if somehow included in congestion) ?

## Section 2.4

Suggest to drop "control" from the section title.

## Section 3

A graphical description of the interactions among the components and interfaces will be welcome, i.e., something similar to figure 1 of section 3.3 (and aasvg would be a nice touch) ?

Should XMI be introduced as well ?

What is `Statistical packet bandwidth`? Is it about average and standard deviation or something similar ? I am not an expert in ACTN, i.e., perhaps other readers/implementers would prefer to have a clear definition.