We were on this in yesterday's interim call. We have a proposal text
now. You were also on the call but I did not record you commenting
anything during the discussion we had on this particular topic. Are you
now saying the resolution we have now in the charter text is not adequate?
- JOuni
9/2/2014 11:39 PM, Behcet Sarikaya kirjoitti:
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Jouni Korhonen <[email protected]> wrote:
Behcet,
Obviously that protocols are known that the intended deployment is going to
use. The details what goes inside that protocol are not. This holds for my
example case 3GPP as well.
We do not need to into same level of detail that e.g. 3GPP stage-2 has
detailing all signaling flows and so on. I believe we as a WG are competent
enough to make a fine division what level of detail is left for the
"deployment models and scenarios" and what goes into protocol solutions.
I hope you read previous mails on this issue.
I think it clear that 3GPP agrees with IETF on the interpretation of
deployment. How can we close our eyes on this and try to put the horse
before the cart?
Why not simply remove it?
Regards,
Behcet
- Jouni
9/1/2014 6:43 PM, Behcet Sarikaya kirjoitti:
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 3:25 AM, Jouni <[email protected]> wrote:
Alper,
I hear your concern. Anyway, the division here is similar to (3GPP)
stage-2 and stage-3 work. The ""deployment models and scenarios" are the
stage-2 descriptions and then we also need the protocol level solutions that
are in separate documents.
Thanks Alper for raising this issue.
3GPP Stage 2 like in SA2 documents are architecture documents.
I don't understand what is going on here.
I am looking at 23.402 on Architecture Enhancements for non-3GPP accesses.
Yes, this document talks about deployment in just a few places, here
is one occurrence: on page 64, PCC deployment options
on page 94, PMIP based S5/S8 deployments, etc.
So in all cases the protocol, i.e. PCC or PMIP is known.
Regards,
Behcet
Makes sense?
- Jouni
On Sep 1, 2014, at 10:13 AM, Alper Yegin wrote:
Okay, we are not going to define how the existing 3FPP system works -
that knowledge is assumed. What I thought goes into the document, for
example, in the case of 3GPP system would be identifying the architecture
changes or modifications needed. If the deployment model assumes all network
functions are virtualized, the document states that and lays out the
architecture based on that. Satoru's & Ryuji's vEPC deployment model (based
on their solution) is IMHO a good example of what could be documented. The
similar applies for other system architectures such as SP Wi-Fi etc.
Jouni,
The "architecture changes" would be based on the a "specific solution".
So, as part of describing a solution one can be talking about what you are
suggesting above. But I don't understand how we can be talking about
"deployment models and scenarios" before we agree on the solutions.
Alper
o Enhanced mobility anchoring: define protocol solutions for a
gateway and mobility anchor assignment and mid-session
mobility
anchor switching that go beyond what has been specified, for
example, in RFC 6097, 6463, and 5142. Traffic steering
associated with the anchor switch is also in-scope if deemed
appropriate.
o Forwarding path and signaling management: the function
that handles mobility management signaling interacts with the
DMM network elements for managing the forwarding state
associated with a mobile node's IP traffic. These two
functions
may or may not be collocated. Furthermore, the forwarding
state
may also be distributed into multiple network elements
instead
of a single network element (e.g., anchor). Protocol
extensions
or new protocols will be specified to allow the above
mentioned
forwarding path and signalling management.
I cannot separate "mobility anchoring" from "fwding path and
signaling management".
Wherever you want to set your anchor or move your anchor to, you'd
need signaling
and setting up data path. The two are inseparable.
Having said that, I'm OK to keep the current work item descriptions
and finalize
rechartering. Once we have detailed discussions about the breakdown
of the work, we
can come back and refine the goals and milestones (as already stated
below [*]).
The enhanced mobility anchoring above is/was rather MIP type
solutions
influenced with "anchors" like we understand today, while the
"forwarding path and signaling management" was meant for more future
oriented solutions where the forwarding path does not necessarily
have
anything mobility specific etc.
(Just FYI: It's not possible to gather what you are saying from
reading
the charter. Different people reading the charter may not have the
same
understanding. But like I said, this is just FYI, I can live with this
text until we come back and refine it later).
Ok. I'll try to clarify the point the text tries to make.
- Jouni
Thanks.
Alper
Any other opinions on collapsing these two?
- Jouni
o Exposing mobility state to mobile nodes and network nodes:
define solutions that allow, for example, mobile nodes to
select
either a care-of address or a home address depending on an
application' mobility needs. In order to enable this
functionality, the network-side control functions and other
networking nodes must also be able to exchange appropriate
control information, as well as to the mobile nodes and their
applications.
The working group may decide to extend the current milestones based
on
the new information and knowledge gained during working on other
documents listed in the initial milestones. [*]
Cheers,
Alper
Possible new documents and
milestones must still fit into the overall DMM charter scope as
outlined
above.
Goals and Milestones:
Feb 2015 - Submit 'The deployment models and scenarios' as a
working
group document(s). To be Informational RFC.
Feb 2015 - Submit 'Enhanced mobility anchoring' as a working group
document. To be Proposed Standard.
Feb 2015 - Submit 'Forwarding path and signaling management' as a
working group document. To be Proposed Standard.
May 2015 - Submit 'Exposing mobility state to mobile nodes and
network
nodes' as a working group document(s). To be Proposed
Standard.
May 2015 - Submit 'The deployment models and scenarios' submitted
to
the IESG. To be Informational RFC.
Jun 2015 - Submit 'Enhanced mobility anchoring' submitted to the
IESG.
To be Proposed Standard.
Jun 2015 - Submit 'Forwarding path and signaling management'
submitted
to the IESG. To be Proposed Standard.
Oct 2015 - Submit 'Exposing mobility state to mobile nodes and
network
nodes' submitted to the IESG. To be Proposed Standard.
7/29/2014 4:22 PM, Jouni Korhonen kirjoitti:
The webex sessions have been cancelled in accordance of better
IETF
process compliancy. New dates will be announced rougghly two weeks
ahead
of tomorrow.
You can (and should) still actively send edits to the list and
I'll
update the text accordingly. Maybe we manage to get ready even
without a
call!
- Jouni & Dapeng
7/25/2014 12:49 AM, Jouni Korhonen kirjoitti:
Folks,
The latest charter draft can be found here:
https://github.com/jounikor/dmm-re-charter/blob/master/recharter_draft.txt
The deadline for the text chnges are 31st July. I'll setup a call
for
next week so that those who want to dial in and have verbal
commenting
can do that. In a meanwhile, email works as usual for updates and
comments on the text. The actual milestone dates are to be done
last but
suggestions are more than welcome.
- Jouni & Dapeng
_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
