Note takers, please add you name here (optional) and then take notes of
discussions in-line below.
Note takers:
Lou Berger

Draft TEAS Notes For IETF 116

Thursday, March 30, 2023

13:00-14:30 JST (04:00 - 05:30 UTC)
Materials: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/116/session/teas
Note taking: https://notes.ietf.org/notes-ietf-116-teas
Meetecho:
https://meetings.conf.meetecho.com/ietf116/?group=teas&short=teas&item=1

Onsite tool:
https://meetings.conf.meetecho.com/onsite116/?group=teas&short=teas&item=1

Audio stream: https://mp3.conf.meetecho.com/ietf116/teas/1.m3u
Zuilip https://zulip.ietf.org/#narrow/stream/teas
WG ICS: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/116/sessions/teas.ics

Available post session:

Recording: http://www.meetecho.com/ietf116/recordings#TEAS
YouTube:

Slot# Start Duration Information

1) 13:00 10 min Title: Administrivia & WG Status

Presenter: Chairs

Julien Maisonneuve: Regarding LS from ETSI (Profiling specification for
multi-site connectivity services based on ACTN) -- We would like the
TEAS WG to take a look at the identified gaps and extend the
specification if needed.

Oscar Gonzalez: Everything we do is contributions driven; We encourage
the ETSI community to come and contribute extensions if any to the ACTN
toolkit.

2) 13:10 10 min Title: WG Draft updates

Draft: Many

Presenter: Chairs

Daniel King: About draft-ietf-teas-applicability-actn-slicing, the draft
isn't quite ready for WGLC yet. I have had a discussion with OTN slicing
authors about the XMI interface: need to be added as a discussion point
and potential requirement to be addressed in another document. We will
do this asap -- and then declare that the draft is ready for WG LC.

3) 13:20 10 min Title: Applicability of Abstraction and Control of Traffic Engineered Networks (ACTN) to Packet Optical Integration (POI)

Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-actn-poi-applicability-08

Presenter: Italo Busi

Pavan Beeram: With regard to the question on SRLGs, if all you are
looking for is an alias, then using the named SRLGs will address the
need. And regarding SRLG cost, it is used when your are looking for
maximal SRLG diversity and SRLGs cannot be totally avoided, the path
with the lowest SRLG cost is picked; the default cost is used if it
isn't specified.
Lou Berger: We will discuss relationship with ACTN POI assurance draft
when it is discussed in the second session.

4) 13:30 15 min Title: A YANG Data Model for the IETF Network Slice Service

Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang-04

Presenter: Reza Rokui

Adrian Farrel: I am wondering whether some of these proposals (for SDP
ACs) will end up blocking the current draft to move forward
Reza Rokui: None of the proposals will block the progress of the draft.
Proposal 1 is already in the model. There are hooks for Proposal 2 to be
used when it eventually becomes a standard.

Italo Busi: Regarding AC, I think that proposal-2 makes sense to ensure
consistency of AC configuration across multiple controller levels. I am
not sure we need the AC service model for network slicing: whether the
AC needs or not to be configured as a service should be an issue of the
NS realization.
Reza Rokui: The model is technology-agnostic and should cater to any
extension.
Italo Busi: Ok we can check the details but we may keep the model
agnostic and leave the technology-specific attributes to be defined in
other models

Italo Busi: A second comment is that there are some issues discussed
offline on the solution to address the topology requirements. But we can
discuss this in the slot for network slicing topology

Joel Halpern: The service model has an identity for isolation. It is not
clear how the isolation requirement in the service model gets realized.
Suggestion is to hold off on the LC for this until the ongoing VPN+
isolation discussion gets settled.
Oscar Gonzalez: I agree with Joel that we need to have a clear
definition of isolation.
Reza Rokui: It is a valid discussion point for the framework but I do
not think it has to be addressed in the context of this document. The
YANG model is aligned with the framework.

Daniele Ceccarelli: Question on Slide 5. What is the use case behind the
horizontal realization of network slices?
Reza Rokui: It is a portion of transport slice in the 5G slicing
context.

5) 13:45 10 min Title: IETF Network Slice Application in 3GPP 5G End-to-End Network Slice [Ongoing WG Adoption Poll]

Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gcdrb-teas-5g-network-slice-application-02

Presenter: Reza Rokui

No comments

6) 13:55 10 min Title: A Realization of IETF Network Slices for 5G Networks Using Current IP/ MPLS Technologies

Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-srld-teas-5g-slicing-06

Presenter: Krzysztof Szarkowicz / Mohamed Boucadair

Italo Busi: There are different steps in the mapping: One is how 5G
Network slice is mapped into IETF NS and two is how the IETF NS is
realized with IP-MPLS. But it would be better to keep these 2 mappings
separate because theoretically when you map IETF NS to a realization
solution you should not care of the use case on top (5G or other) and
similarly when you map a 5G slice into an IETF NS you should not care
about how the IETF NS is realized

Krzysztof Szarkowicz: Architecture that we discuss in the draft is
applicable to other use-cases, but the focus of our draft is primarily
on 5G

Jie Dong:
1) Some of the terminology needs to be aligned with IETF network slice
draft.
2) The title of section 4 is the realization model, while the
subsections 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 are about the options of mapping 5G slices to
IETF network slice. It is necessary to distinguish the slice mapping at
the network border from the IETF slice realization in the transport
network.
3) The QoS mapping described in section 5 maybe something at the network
border, and is relatively independent from the IETF slice realiztion.
Suggest to clarify the relationship between QoS mapping and slice
realization.

Krzysztof Szarkowicz: We can add the requested clarifications.

Daniele Ceccarelli: How do we stitch different transport segments
together and show that they make up a single end-to-end slice?
Krzysztof Szarkowicz: Depends on how the NBI requests the slices -- if
it is requested as say 3 different slices, then it is realized as 3
different slices; if it is requested as collection, the realization
would be for the collection.
Luay Jalil: The higher level slice controller will see the end-to-end
slice

7) 14:05 10 min Title: Instantiation of IETF Network Slices in Service Providers Network

Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-barguil-teas-network-slices-instantation-06

Presenter: Luis M. Contreras

Daniele Ceccarelli: Agree that the alignment of the NBI slicing YANG
model with LxNM is useful. But how is the alignment with LxSM useful?
Luis M. Contreras: The thinking is that the NBI slicing model can be
translated to another service model.

Pavan Beeram: In previous meetings, the chairs suggested finding other
existing slicing instantiation drafts into which this content can be
merged. Have you done this exercise?
Luis M. Contreras: We would like some inputs or suggestions for this.
Daniele Ceccarelli: This is useful work. It makes sense to merge this
into the ACTN applicability document.
Pavan Beeram: Please work with the authors of the ACTN applicability
document and find ways to merge the content.

8) 14:15 10 min Title: IETF Network Slice Controller and its associated data models

Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-contreras-teas-slice-controller-models-05

Presenter: Luis M. Contreras

Pavan Beeram: There was good support for the document in the previous
meeting and there are currently no objections to progressing the
document. The document will be considered for adoption.

Break 14:30

Note: Presentation slots will slide into the next session if needed

Thursday, March 30, 2023

15:00-16:00 JST (06:00 - 07:00 UTC)
Materials: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/116/session/teas
Note taking: https://notes.ietf.org/notes-ietf-116-teas
Meetecho:
https://meetings.conf.meetecho.com/ietf116/?group=teas&short=teas&item=2

Audio stream: https://mp3.conf.meetecho.com/ietf116/teas/2.m3u
Zuilip https://zulip.ietf.org/#narrow/stream/teas
WG ICS: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/upcoming.ics?filters=teas

Available post session:
Recording: http://www.meetecho.com/ietf116/recordings#TEAS
YouTube:

Slot# Start Duration Information

-- 15:00 5 min Title: Intro (slides from slot 1)

Presenter: Chairs

9) 15:05 10 min Title: Merge Status -- YANG Data Model for Network Resource Partition Policy and A YANG Data Model for Network Resource Partitions (NRPs)

Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bestbar-teas-yang-nrp-policy-03

Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wd-teas-nrp-yang-02

Presenter: Bo Wu

Greg Mirsky: Performance Metrics (precision availability) can be part of
a separate model
Bo Wu: Each NRP may have its own set of metrics.

Greg Mirsky: Is the MNA option specified under NRP selectors the same as
the use-case identified in the MNA use-cases document?
Pavan Beeram: Yes, it is the same.

Oscar Gonzalez: Looking forward to seeing the merged document.

10) 15:15 10 min Title: IETF Network Slice Topology YANG Data Model

Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-liu-teas-transport-network-slice-yang-06

Presenter: Aihua Guo (tentative)

Pavan Beeram: When defining the slice service model, we said the high
runner case was for the client to not request which topology the service
needs to be placed. But we did go ahead and provided an option in the
service model to specify a reference to a pre-existing customized
topology. Why is this needed now?

Aihua Guo: This is needed for easier association of SLOs.

Lou Berger (poll for interest): We are running about 2:1; so there is
interest but there is also some opposition

11) 15:25 10 min Title: Applicability of Abstraction and Control of Traffic Engineered Networks (ACTN) for Packet Optical Integration (POI) service assurance

Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-poidt-teas-actn-poi-assurance-00

Presenter: Italo Busi or Daniel King

Lou Berger: There is too much duplicated text. It is easier to progress
one document as opposed to two. Remove the duplicated text and then see
if a new draft is still needed.
Italo Busi: There was that extending the existing document would
increase its current scope. But we will revisit this.
Daniele Ceccarelli: It may be useful to keep the documents separate.
Oscar Gonzalez: What about coordination with opsarea work?
Daniel King: This is being done.

12) 15:35 10 min Title: Tactical Traffic Engineering (TTE)

Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-rtgwg-tte-00

Presenter: Tony Li

Adrian Farrel: Please check if this document is consistent with
"Tactical TE" specified in the RFC3272bis document
Andrew Stone: Will TTE also play a role when a live controller is being
used?
Tony Li: It depends on how frequently the live controller is updating
the paths. If the controller is doing longer term path-adjustments, TTE
can playt a role.
Pavan Beeram: The TEAS chairs will discuss with the RTGWG chairs on what
would be an appropriate home for the document.

13) 15:45 5 min. Title: Hackathon Update - TeraFlow SDN: OpenSource SDN controller for integrated IETF network slice management

Presenter: Adrian Farrel

Daniel King: It may be useful for the document datatracker to reference
this.
Charles Eckel: The draft that describes the datatracker mechanism to add
pointers to related implementations is
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-eckel-edm-find-code/.
I am also seeking input on text to add to the draft covering guidance
for WG chairs when determining a proposed related implementation link is
appropriate for a working group draft or RFC. Please send to
eckelcu@cisco.com.

14) 15:50 10 min. Title: Bearers, Attachment Circuits & SAPs

Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-boro-opsawg-teas-common-ac

Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-boro-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit

Presenter: Mohamed Boucadair

Lou Berger: People who want to hear more, please follow the the work in
opsawg

Adjourn 16:00