Hi Adrian,
Avoidance of discussion happens everywhere on many topics in the IETF, and as we know silence does not equal consensus. We also all know why that occurs. Having the list specifically for this topic is to ensure that sane discussion does happen, and happens in a location that easy for anyone (esp the IESG) to find at some point down the track when (invariably) an ask comes forward about a having BOF. So yes, the interested parties do need to self-organize to get that "agreed' definition.
Please don't read any weight into the term "agreed IETF definition". This mailing list does not get to say this is THE definition for the IETF. the wording is to scopes the discussion such that the definition needs to be in scope for the IETF. Could it have been said better, yep. Mea culpa. (Although I really thought how the IETF forms consensus is well known. Will ensure to be far more explicit in future)
Where it goes from here depends on what happens on the mailing list and that is simply no different to most of the other bodies of work that comes into the IETF.
Cheers
Terry
(Dammit, the single malt is on the top shelf!)
On 17/01/2017, 1:10 PM, "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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@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
>
>
<<attachment: smime.p7s>>