Open Discussion Questions… What is “network slicing”?

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
IETF Calsify.
Advertisements

© 2006 Open Grid Forum Network Services Interface OGF29: Working Group Meeting Guy Roberts, 19 th Jun 2010.
Russ Housley IETF Chair 23 July 2012 Introduction to the IETF Standards Process.
Deterministic Networking (DetNet) BoF IETF 91 Monday Afternoon Session II, Coral 1.
L2VPN WG “NVO3” Meeting IETF 82 Taipei, Taiwan. Agenda Administrivia Framing Today’s Discussions (5 minutes) Cloud Networking: Framework and VPN Applicability.
IETF54 Charter Issues Dealt with since IETF53 PANA WG Meeting Basavaraj Patil.
IPR Guidelines for Working Groups draft- Scott Brim
DISPATCH WG: ad hoc meeting on DREGS IETF-76 Mary Barnes (Dispatch WG co-chair) Eric Burger (ad hoc chair) 12 November DREGS ad hoc (DISPATCH) IETF.
What is ETSI EMTEL all about Claire d’Esclercs Technical Officer for EMTEL European Telecommunications Standards Institute.
Copyright 2008 Introduction to Project Management, Second Edition 2  Many people have heard the following sayings: ◦ If you fail to plan, you plan to.
Mdnsext BoF Chairs: Tim Chown, Thomas Narten IETF85 Atlanta 6 th November, 2012.
Russ Housley IETF Chair Internet2 Spring Member Meeting 28 April 2009 Successful Protocol Development.
IETF #82 DRINKS WG Meeting Taipei, Taiwan Fri, Nov 18 th
OGF DMNR BoF Dynamic Management of Network Resources Documents available at: Guy Roberts, John Vollbrecht.
NEWTRK WG Paris, August 5, Agenda 0 – agenda bashing – 10m 1 - introduction & status - chair- 10m discussion on the issues with ISD proposal.
Multiple Interfaces (MIF) WG IETF 79, Beijing, China Margaret Wasserman Hui Deng
Guidance of Using Unique Local Addresses draft-liu-v6ops-ula-usage-analysis-05 draft-liu-v6ops-ula-usage-analysis-05 Bing Liu(speaker), Sheng Jiang, Cameron.
Dissuasion, Working Group Scope and Deliverables Lou Berger Pat Thaler
Emergency Context Resolution with Internet Technologies BOF (ecrit) Jon Peterson, Hannes Tschofenig BOF Chairs.
IETF 92 draft-lam-teas-usage-info-model-net- topology-00.
Design Guidelines Thursday July 26, 2007 Bernard Aboba IETF 69 Chicago, IL.
ENUM WG mini-BOF Setting the Stage Richard Shockey IETF 60 San Diego.
Interface to the Routing System (IRS) BOF IETF 85, Atlanta November 2012.
Transport Layer Security (TLS) IETF 73 Thursday, November Chairs: Eric Rescorla Joe Salowey.
Re-cap & Next Steps Mahalingam Mani. The WG Now and from Now The main deliverables have progressed close to completion for this charter Problem statement.
ROLL Working Group Meeting IETF-82, Tapei, November 2011 Online Agenda and Slides at: bin/wg/wg_proceedings.cgi Co-chairs:
MODERN BoF Managing, Ordering, Distributing, Exposing, and Registering telephone Numbers IETF 92.
Emergency Context Resolution with Internet Technologies (ecrit) Hannes Tschofenig, Marc Linser Chairs.
IETF #85 - NETCONF WG session 1 NETCONF WG IETF 85, Atlanta, USA WEDNESDAY, November 7, Bert Wijnen Mehmet Ersue.
DICE BOF, IETF-87 Berlin DTLS In Constrained Environments (DICE) BOF Wed 15:10-16:10, Potsdam 3 BOF Chairs: Zach Shelby, Carsten Bormann Responsible AD:
6TSCH Webex 07/05/2013. Reminder: This call is recorded the record is public Minutes are taken and published to the ML.
1 IETF 95 Buenos Aires, AR TEAS Working Group Online Agenda and Slide: Data tracker:
© 2006 Open Grid Forum Grid High-Performance Networking Research Group (GHPN-RG) Dimitra Simeonidou
Network Slicing (netslicing) BoF
47th IETF - Adelaide Chris Lonvick
Continuous Improvement Projects
IETF 97, November Seoul, Korea
SFC Working Group Session 97th IETF Seoul, South Korea Chairs overview
NETCONF WG IETF 93 - Prague, Czech Republic THURSDAY, July 23, 2015
Dirk Kutscher, Sarah Banks
Packet Based Methods: Standardization Framework
“Core project management knowledge areas & tools”
Note Well All statements related to the activities of the IETF and addressed to the IETF are subject to all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026, which.
Wednesday, 9:30-11:00, Grand Ballroom 3, Morning session I
IETF Working Group CSCI 344 Spring 2016 Report <Your name>
TEAS Working Group IETF 99 - Prague Online Agenda and Slide:
CAPWAP Working Group IETF 73 Minneapolis 18 Nov 2008, 17:10-18:10
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 CITY COUNCIL MEETING RESCIND RESOLUTION NO AND ADOPT A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE RULES GOVERNING.
TEAS Working Group IETF London Online Agenda and Slides:
The ERA.Net instrument Aims and benefits
45th NMRG Meeting - IETF 100 Session 2
IEEE MEDIA INDEPENDENT HANDOVER DCN:
ECN Experimentation draft-black-ecn-experimentation
A YANG model to manage the optical interface parameters for an external transponder in a WDM network draft-dharini-ccamp-dwdm-if-param-yang-01
SPRING IETF-98 Tuesday, March 28.
Note Well Any submission to the IETF intended by the Contributor for publication as all or part of an IETF Internet-Draft or RFC and any statement made.
Common Operations and Management on network Slices (coms) BoF
Global Grid Forum (GGF) Orientation
Venkatesan Mahalingam
IEEE 802 2nd Vice Chair last name at ieee dot org
“Dying to be Heard” Module Two: Writing Effective Recommendations
IEEE 802 2nd Vice Chair last name at ieee dot org
TEAS Working Group IETF 102
TEAS Working Group: IETF Montreal
Handling YANG Revisions – Discussion Kickoff
DetNet WG Chairs: Lou Berger
Bron Gondwana (remote) Jim Fenton
IETF-104 (Prague) DHC WG Next steps
Roger Marks (Huawei) capable 16 September 2019
COMS BoF Addressing the Questions
Presentation transcript:

Open Discussion Questions… What is “network slicing”? Do we have a common view? Can we identify distinct views? Is the definition clear? What are the main use cases? Do we have a core set of use cases: For the Internet That a body of people want solved What IETF work is in progress? Does it need encouragement or modification? What other IETF work is needed? Is there non-IETF work that we can utilize? Should proponents divert their efforts outside of the IETF?

RFC 5434(ish) Questions Is there a problem that needs solving? Is the IETF the right group to attempt solving it? Is there a critical mass of participants willing to work on the problem (e.g., write drafts, review drafts, etc.)? Is the scope of the problem well defined and understood. That is, do people generally understand what could be worked on (and what not!) Is it clear what the deliverables would be? Is there a reasonable probability of success tackling this problem and producing these deliverables?

Conclusions and Next Steps What the Chairs think they heard What the chairs will do next Post the minutes Drink beer What the AD thinks What the AD will do next What the proponents should do in the meantime