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

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2024-09-07
10 Tero Kivinen Closed request for Telechat review by SECDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events'
2024-09-07
10 Tero Kivinen Assignment of request for Telechat review by SECDIR to Linda Dunbar was marked no-response
2024-08-29
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IANA Actions
2024-08-29
10 (System) RFC Editor state changed to MISSREF
2024-08-29
10 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2024-08-29
10 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2024-08-28
10 (System) Removed all action holders (IESG state changed)
2024-08-28
10 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2024-08-28
10 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2024-08-28
10 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2024-08-28
10 Cindy Morgan Ballot approval text was generated
2024-08-28
10 Jim Guichard IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup
2024-08-28
10 (System) Changed action holders to Jim Guichard (IESG state changed)
2024-08-28
10 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed
2024-08-28
10 Daniel King New version available: draft-ietf-teas-applicability-actn-slicing-10.txt
2024-08-28
10 Daniel King New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Daniel King)
2024-08-28
10 Daniel King Uploaded new revision
2024-08-22
09 Tero Kivinen Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Linda Dunbar
2024-08-22
09 (System) Changed action holders to Adrian Farrel, Daniel King, John Drake, Haomian Zheng (IESG state changed)
2024-08-22
09 Jenny Bui IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation
2024-08-22
09 Cindy Morgan Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2024-08-22
09 John Scudder
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for the high-quality document.

One minor nit on Section 2.1,

  Network resources need to be allocated and dedicated for use by …
[Ballot comment]
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.
2024-08-22
09 John Scudder [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for John Scudder
2024-08-21
09 Murray Kucherawy [Ballot comment]
Section 1.1 defines "Infrastructure Resources" but that term doesn't exist (at least in that form) in this document.
2024-08-21
09 Murray Kucherawy [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy
2024-08-21
09 Amanda Baber IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2024-08-21
09 Paul Wouters
[Ballot comment]
The document title would be more accurate if it said "IETF Network Slicing". The document does explain this later but I think it …
[Ballot comment]
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.
2024-08-21
09 Paul Wouters [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Paul Wouters
2024-08-21
09 Zaheduzzaman Sarker [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Zaheduzzaman Sarker
2024-08-20
09 Erik Kline [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Erik Kline
2024-08-20
09 Daniel King New version available: draft-ietf-teas-applicability-actn-slicing-09.txt
2024-08-20
09 (System) New version approved
2024-08-20
09 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Adrian Farrel , Daniel King , Haomian Zheng , John Drake
2024-08-20
09 Daniel King Uploaded new revision
2024-08-20
08 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2024-08-20
08 Daniel King New version available: draft-ietf-teas-applicability-actn-slicing-08.txt
2024-08-20
08 (System) New version approved
2024-08-20
08 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Adrian Farrel , Daniel King , Haomian Zheng , John Drake
2024-08-20
08 Daniel King Uploaded new revision
2024-08-19
07 Roman Danyliw [Ballot comment]
Thank you to Peter Yee for the GENART review.
2024-08-19
07 Roman Danyliw [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw
2024-08-19
07 Éric Vyncke
[Ballot comment]

# 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 …
[Ballot comment]

# 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.
2024-08-19
07 Éric Vyncke [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke
2024-08-13
07 Joe Clarke Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Joe Clarke. Sent review to list.
2024-08-12
07 Alvaro Retana Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Alvaro Retana.
2024-08-12
07 Jenny Bui Placed on agenda for telechat - 2024-08-22
2024-08-12
07 Jim Guichard Ballot has been issued
2024-08-12
07 Jim Guichard [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Jim Guichard
2024-08-12
07 Jim Guichard Created "Approve" ballot
2024-08-12
07 Jim Guichard IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2024-08-12
07 Jim Guichard Ballot writeup was changed
2024-08-09
07 Peter Yee
Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Peter Yee. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier …
Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Peter Yee. Sent review to list. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.
2024-08-09
07 Peter Yee Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Peter Yee.
2024-08-09
07 Linda Dunbar Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Linda Dunbar. Sent review to list.
2024-08-08
07 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2024-08-06
07 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2024-08-06
07 David Dong
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-teas-applicability-actn-slicing-07, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-teas-applicability-actn-slicing-07, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist
2024-08-01
07 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Peter Yee
2024-07-29
07 Carlos Pignataro Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Joe Clarke
2024-07-26
07 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Linda Dunbar
2024-07-25
07 Daniam Henriques Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Alvaro Retana
2024-07-25
07 Cindy Morgan IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2024-07-25
07 Cindy Morgan
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-08-08):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-teas-applicability-actn-slicing@ietf.org, james.n.guichard@futurewei.com, teas-chairs@ietf.org, teas@ietf.org, vbeeram@juniper.net …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-08-08):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-teas-applicability-actn-slicing@ietf.org, james.n.guichard@futurewei.com, teas-chairs@ietf.org, teas@ietf.org, vbeeram@juniper.net
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Applicability of Abstraction and Control of Traffic Engineered Networks (ACTN) to Network Slicing) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Traffic Engineering Architecture and
Signaling WG (teas) to consider the following document: - 'Applicability of
Abstraction and Control of Traffic Engineered
  Networks (ACTN) to Network Slicing'
  as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2024-08-08. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  Network abstraction is a technique that can be applied to a network
  domain to obtain a view of potential connectivity across the network
  by utilizing a set of policies to select network resources.

  Network slicing is an approach to network operations that builds on
  the concept of network abstraction to provide programmability,
  flexibility, and modularity.  It may use techniques such as Software
  Defined Networking (SDN) and Network Function Virtualization (NFV) to
  create multiple logical or virtual networks, each tailored for a set
  of services that share the same set of requirements.

  Abstraction and Control of Traffic Engineered Networks (ACTN) is
  described in RFC 8453.  It defines an SDN-based architecture that
  relies on the concept of network and service abstraction to detach
  network and service control from the underlying data plane.

  This document outlines the applicability of ACTN to network slicing
  in a Traffic Engineered (TE) network that utilizes IETF technologies.
  It also identifies the features of network slicing not currently
  within the scope of ACTN, and indicates where ACTN might be extended.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-applicability-actn-slicing/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.




2024-07-25
07 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2024-07-25
07 Jim Guichard Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR
2024-07-25
07 Jim Guichard Requested Last Call review by OPSDIR
2024-07-25
07 Jim Guichard Requested Last Call review by SECDIR
2024-07-25
07 Jim Guichard Last call was requested
2024-07-25
07 Jim Guichard Last call announcement was generated
2024-07-25
07 Jim Guichard Ballot approval text was generated
2024-07-25
07 Jim Guichard Ballot writeup was generated
2024-07-25
07 Jim Guichard IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2024-07-25
07 (System) Changed action holders to Jim Guichard (IESG state changed)
2024-07-25
07 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised I-D Needed
2024-07-25
07 Daniel King New version available: draft-ietf-teas-applicability-actn-slicing-07.txt
2024-07-25
07 Daniel King New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Daniel King)
2024-07-25
07 Daniel King Uploaded new revision
2024-07-22
06 (System) Changed action holders to Adrian Farrel, Daniel King, John Drake, Haomian Zheng (IESG state changed)
2024-07-22
06 Jim Guichard IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation
2024-07-22
06 Jim Guichard AD review provided === https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/vu6Ury0_zK1SxMQ7F8AeR-NTpFY/ ===
2024-07-10
06 Jim Guichard IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2024-06-09
06 Vishnu Beeram
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

“Strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent" is a reasonable
characterization.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

There was no controversy. There were no decisions where the consensus was 
particularly rough.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

No one has threatened an appeal. No one has indicated extreme discontent.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

This document does not propose any protocol extensions. It is an informational
document that outlines the applicability of Abstraction and Control of Traffic
Engineered Networks (ACTN) to network slicing in a Traffic Engineered (TE)
network that utilizes IETF technologies. The document does not include any
implementation report.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

The document references some work being discussed in CCAMP WG. However, there
isn't enough in-depth detail of the relevant technologies to warrant a review
from CCAMP WG.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

The document has been reviewed by the Routing Directorate.
Please refer to https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-teas-applicability-actn-slicing-06-rtgdir-early-przygienda-2024-05-26/

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

The document does not contain a YANG module.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

There is no section in the document that is written in a formal language, such as
XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOS's CDDL, etc.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes, it is the shepherd's opinion that the document is needed, well written,
complete and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

It is the shepherd's opinion that the document sufficiently addresses all
the issues specified in [6].

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

The type of publication being requested is "Informational". This is appropriate
because this document provides information on the applicability of ACTN to
network slicing in a Traffic Engineered (TE) network that utilizes IETF
technologies. All Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this
intent.


12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

The TEAS WG conducts an IPR poll before an individual draft becomes a WG document
and before a WG document goes to last call. The WG process requires IPR compliance
statement from all authors and contributors listed in the document. This process
was duly applied to the document. There are no IPR disclosures associated with
this document. 

Pre-WGLC IPR Poll: Please refer to entry dated 2024-02-17 at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-applicability-actn-slicing/history/

Pre-WG-Adoption IPR Poll: Please refer to entry dated 2021-08-27 at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-king-teas-applicability-actn-slicing/history/

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

The authors/editors and contributors have had sufficient opportunities to express
unwillingness to be listed as such. There are 4 authors listed on the front page 
and 4 other contributors listed later in the document.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

The I-D nits tool report for version 6 of the document shows 5 warnings. 4 of
those warnings are because of outdated references - those will be addressed in a
subsequent version. There is one warning about weird spacing -- the spacing used
is deliberate and the warning can be ignored.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

All listed informative and normative references are appropriate.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

All listed normative references are freely available.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97
][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

There are no normative downward references. All listed normative references 
are published RFCs.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

All listed normative references are published RFCs.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

The publication of this document will not change the status of any existing RFCs.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

This draft makes no requests for IANA action.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

This draft makes no requests for IANA action.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/
2024-06-09
06 Vishnu Beeram IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2024-06-09
06 Vishnu Beeram IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2024-06-09
06 (System) Changed action holders to Jim Guichard (IESG state changed)
2024-06-09
06 Vishnu Beeram Responsible AD changed to Jim Guichard
2024-06-09
06 Vishnu Beeram Document is now in IESG state Publication Requested
2024-06-09
06 Vishnu Beeram Tag Awaiting Expert Review/Resolution of Issues Raised cleared.
2024-06-09
06 Vishnu Beeram
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the …
# Document Shepherd Write-Up for Group Documents

*This version is dated 4 July 2022.*

Thank you for your service as a document shepherd. Among the responsibilities is
answering the questions in this write-up to give helpful context to Last Call
and Internet Engineering Steering Group ([IESG][1]) reviewers, and your
diligence in completing it is appreciated. The full role of the shepherd is
further described in [RFC 4858][2]. You will need the cooperation of the authors
and editors to complete these checks.

Note that some numbered items contain multiple related questions; please be sure
to answer all of them.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

“Strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent" is a reasonable
characterization.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

There was no controversy. There were no decisions where the consensus was 
particularly rough.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

No one has threatened an appeal. No one has indicated extreme discontent.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

This document does not propose any protocol extensions. It is an informational
document that outlines the applicability of Abstraction and Control of Traffic
Engineered Networks (ACTN) to network slicing in a Traffic Engineered (TE)
network that utilizes IETF technologies. The document does not include any
implementation report.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

The document references some work being discussed in CCAMP WG. However, there
isn't enough in-depth detail of the relevant technologies to warrant a review
from CCAMP WG.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

The document has been reviewed by the Routing Directorate.
Please refer to https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-teas-applicability-actn-slicing-06-rtgdir-early-przygienda-2024-05-26/

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

The document does not contain a YANG module.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

There is no section in the document that is written in a formal language, such as
XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOS's CDDL, etc.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes, it is the shepherd's opinion that the document is needed, well written,
complete and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

It is the shepherd's opinion that the document sufficiently addresses all
the issues specified in [6].

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

The type of publication being requested is "Informational". This is appropriate
because this document provides information on the applicability of ACTN to
network slicing in a Traffic Engineered (TE) network that utilizes IETF
technologies. All Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this
intent.


12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

The TEAS WG conducts an IPR poll before an individual draft becomes a WG document
and before a WG document goes to last call. The WG process requires IPR compliance
statement from all authors and contributors listed in the document. This process
was duly applied to the document. There are no IPR disclosures associated with
this document. 

Pre-WGLC IPR Poll: Please refer to entry dated 2024-02-17 at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-applicability-actn-slicing/history/

Pre-WG-Adoption IPR Poll: Please refer to entry dated 2021-08-27 at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-king-teas-applicability-actn-slicing/history/

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

The authors/editors and contributors have had sufficient opportunities to express
unwillingness to be listed as such. There are 4 authors listed on the front page 
and 4 other contributors listed later in the document.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

The I-D nits tool report for version 6 of the document shows 5 warnings. 4 of
those warnings are because of outdated references - those will be addressed in a
subsequent version. There is one warning about weird spacing -- the spacing used
is deliberate and the warning can be ignored.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

All listed informative and normative references are appropriate.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

All listed normative references are freely available.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97
][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

There are no normative downward references. All listed normative references 
are published RFCs.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

All listed normative references are published RFCs.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

The publication of this document will not change the status of any existing RFCs.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

This draft makes no requests for IANA action.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

This draft makes no requests for IANA action.

[1]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/
[2]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4858.html
[3]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7942.html
[4]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools
[5]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8342.html
[6]: https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/ExpertTopics
[7]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp79
[8]: https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/
[9]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3967.html
[10]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp97
[11]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126.html
[12]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-5
[13]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.1
[14]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2026.html#section-4.2
[15]: https://authors.ietf.org/en/content-guidelines-overview
[16]: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/
[17]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/
2024-05-26
06 Daniam Henriques Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Tony Przygienda. Submission of review completed at an earlier date.
2024-05-25
06 Daniam Henriques Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Tony Przygienda.
2024-03-18
06 Daniam Henriques Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Tony Przygienda
2024-03-17
06 Vishnu Beeram Tag Awaiting Expert Review/Resolution of Issues Raised set. Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC cleared.
2024-03-17
06 Vishnu Beeram Requested Early review by RTGDIR
2024-03-17
06 Daniel King New version available: draft-ietf-teas-applicability-actn-slicing-06.txt
2024-03-17
06 (System) New version approved
2024-03-17
06 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Adrian Farrel , Daniel King , Haomian Zheng , John Drake
2024-03-17
06 Daniel King Uploaded new revision
2024-03-10
05 Vishnu Beeram Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set.
2024-03-10
05 Vishnu Beeram IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call
2024-02-17
05 Vishnu Beeram IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2024-02-17
05 Vishnu Beeram Intended Status changed to Informational from None
2024-02-17
05 Vishnu Beeram
2024-02-11
05 Adrian Farrel New version available: draft-ietf-teas-applicability-actn-slicing-05.txt
2024-02-11
05 Adrian Farrel New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Adrian Farrel)
2024-02-11
05 Adrian Farrel Uploaded new revision
2023-08-29
04 Daniel King New version available: draft-ietf-teas-applicability-actn-slicing-04.txt
2023-08-29
04 Daniel King New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Daniel King)
2023-08-29
04 Daniel King Uploaded new revision
2023-03-06
03 Daniel King New version available: draft-ietf-teas-applicability-actn-slicing-03.txt
2023-03-06
03 (System) New version approved
2023-03-06
03 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Adrian Farrel , Daniel King , Haomian Zheng , John Drake
2023-03-06
03 Daniel King Uploaded new revision
2022-11-07
02 Lou Berger IETF 115 - open issues on list to be addressed
2022-11-07
02 Lou Berger Notification list changed to vbeeram@juniper.net because the document shepherd was set
2022-11-07
02 Lou Berger Document shepherd changed to Vishnu Pavan Beeram
2022-09-06
02 Daniel King New version available: draft-ietf-teas-applicability-actn-slicing-02.txt
2022-09-06
02 (System) New version approved
2022-09-06
02 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Adrian Farrel , Daniel King , Haomian Zheng , John Drake
2022-09-06
02 Daniel King Uploaded new revision
2022-03-07
01 Adrian Farrel New version available: draft-ietf-teas-applicability-actn-slicing-01.txt
2022-03-07
01 (System) New version accepted (logged-in submitter: Adrian Farrel)
2022-03-07
01 Adrian Farrel Uploaded new revision
2021-09-21
00 Vishnu Beeram This document now replaces draft-king-teas-applicability-actn-slicing instead of None
2021-09-21
00 Daniel King New version available: draft-ietf-teas-applicability-actn-slicing-00.txt
2021-09-21
00 (System) WG -00 approved
2021-09-16
00 Daniel King Set submitter to "Daniel King ", replaces to draft-king-teas-applicability-actn-slicing and sent approval email to group chairs: teas-chairs@ietf.org
2021-09-16
00 Daniel King Uploaded new revision