Hi Charlie,


Thanks for your comments. I think your comments make sense, as I agreed on
it in my presentation.

Showing the mapping and relationship between the given components in this
draft and the 5GS. But I will check about depth of it and what documents
will be considered.

The update version will be posted in May.


Thanks again!



Seil Jeon


From: Charlie Perkins [mailto:charles.perk...@earthlink.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 8:49 AM
To: Seil Jeon
Cc: dmm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DMM] Comment on draft-ietf-dmm-deployment-models


Hello Seil,

Please excuse my delay for this clarifying comments.  I have been immersed

In order to be as clear as possible, please let me refer to a couple of
diagrams.  Slide 5 of your presentation at IETF 101 was entitled "Model-5:
On Demand Control Plane Orchestration Mode".

A URL is:

And then we have various representations of 3GPP architectural diagrams for
5G.  For instance, one can look at slides 4-6 of K. Bogineni et al.'s

A URL for the latter is:

My suggestion was to try to correlate the two different representations of
advanced mobility management architectures.  This would involve making a
correspondence between the [dmm] nomenclature (e.g., H-CPA, A-CPN, etc.) and
the 3GPP nomenclature.  Plus it would be very nice to express the Service
Primitives in terms of 3GPP 5G reference points - for at least a few of
them.  Otherwise there is a reasonable chance that people from 3GPP and
people from IETF may not see each others' points of view.

As I mentioned in an earlier email, I was somewhat surprised that routing
between access networks using heterogeneous physical media was considered to
be a problem, so the mismatch of viewpoints between the SDOs really does
seem to be a problem.  I hope we can avoid it this next time around!  Maybe
the FPC design for policy will be helpful.  I could imagine writing up a new
section for inclusion in draft-bogineni-dmm-optimized-mobile-user-plane, but
as mentioned elsewhere it is not clear just what are the criteria for
selection.  Or (quite likely) I just missed it, but I'll try find it in the
rush of relevant emails after the last IETF.

Charlie P.




On 3/27/2018 1:52 AM, Seil Jeon wrote:

Hi Charlie,


Thanks for your comments on our update of the I-D.

You commented and suggested that 5G functions in TS 23.501 need to be mapped
with the CPA/CPN, DPA/DPN introduced in our I-D.

I know you have additional suggestions. Will you specifically mention,




Seil Jeon

dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org <mailto:dmm@ietf.org> 


dmm mailing list

Reply via email to