On 1/16/2017 8:49 PM, Terry Manderson wrote: > Since you asked Adrian :) > > 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. well, there was an opportunity for some discussion an IETF context that began and then went unanswered... https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/teas/current/msg01808.html > 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. Well there seems to be a trend to having a low bar for mailing lists which means that folks with new ideas (at least to them) don't have much motivation to research on going work to see how theirs fits in... BTW this is a general comment -- even if perhaps applicable in this case. Lou > Cheers > Terry > > On 14/01/2017, 3:37 AM, "ietf on behalf of Adrian Farrel" <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx on behalf of adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 > >