Hi, While we all are holding our drinks in the low bar position waiting for the outcome, as Lou and Adrian noted, work is continuing on in both teas (where they now explicitly use the term network slices to help those not familiar with the work) and detnet. So advocates of this work, if interested in real-time progress, should realize as that famous quote goes "you've got to know when to hold'em, know when to fold'em" or there won't be enough time to have impact now. Advice myself, the Chairs, authors, and others already relayed when the list was first discussed. It's advice for any new mailing list kickoff - while herding, be sure to participate in work on-going. Deborah > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel > Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 10:11 PM > To: 'Terry Manderson' <terry.manderson@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: New Non-WG Mailing List: NetSlices - Network Slicing > > 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 > > > >