Hi Sri,
Thank you for your clarifying email. The POC draft talks about the SRv6 demos
and I can see how it can be seen as a
document advocating a particular solution strategy.
So, I agree that we should stay away from specific POCs and drafts in the LS.
Having said that however,
I think a general statement about proof of concepts can help the cause.
At this point I think it is more important to discuss the GAPs in existing
system rather than focusing on different
solutions. That's why I really like what draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-00 is
trying to do.
Cheers,
Arashmid
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: 08 July 2018 19:29
> To: Arashmid Akhavain <[email protected]>; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User
> Plane Protocol in 5GC"
>
> Hi Arashmid,
>
> We were trying to avoid this debate on inclusion/exclusions of individual I-
> D’s, but looks like we are just doing that. That is fine. Lets review the
> situation.
>
> The approach on what documents to be explicitly listed is based on the
> following principles.
>
> #1 Provide references to DMM WG documents that have any relation to the
> study item in 5GC.
> #2 Include references to individual I-D’s that have done broader
> requirement/solution analysis/comparative study on the topic of mobile user
> plane optimization; documents that are not advocating a specific solution.
> We also wanted to apply the constraint of documents that have had
> substantial discussions in the working group. In other words, documents that
> were reviewed by the WG and received significantly high number of
> comments.
>
>
> For #1: we have included draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-02.txt, as its a
> WG document on track for standardization.
>
> For #2: we have included draft-bogineni as there were many
> discussions/presentations/conference calls on that draft. We have also
> included draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-00, but however this draft was
> published recently and had near zero discussions in the WG. But given the
> quality of the document and noting that its about requirement analysis and
> as its not advocating a specific solution, we chose to keep this document in
> the list.
>
> We have not included any other I-D’s which have not had enough discussions
> and which are solution specific documents. Not that we have not established
> the draft applicability to the 3GPP study item. These include:
>
> draft-auge-dmm-hicn-mobility-00,
> draft-auge-dmm-hicn-mobility-deployment-options-00,
> draft-camarillo-dmm-srv6-mobile-pocs-00,
> draft-gundavelli-dmm-mfa-00
> draft-homma-dmm-5gs-id-loc-coexistence-01,
>
>
>
> Now, if this sounds unreasonable or unfair, we have two options.
>
> #1 Remove references to all individual drafts and only include WG
> documents
> #2: Include every single I-D (WG and non WG) documents.
>
>
> All - Please comment.
>
>
>
> Sri
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 7/8/18, 2:14 PM, "Arashmid Akhavain"
> <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Hi Sri,
> >Thank you for the reply. Pablo's draft is rather different as it
> >describes the two POCs addressing the mobile core data plane.
> >Referencing the POCs in the LS can help put things into perspective and
> >sort of backs up all the analysis work that everyone have been involved
> >in for the last while.
> >
> >I agree, we do want to keep it simple, but the POCs can certainly add to
> >the strength of the LS.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Arashmid
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) [mailto:[email protected]]
> >Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2018 2:25 AM
> >To: Arashmid Akhavain <[email protected]>; [email protected]
> >Subject: Re: New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User
> >Plane Protocol in 5GC"
> >
> >Hi Arashmid,
> >
> >Thanks for the feedback.
> >
> >I have added a link to the DMM WG pages and it has links to all the DMM
> >documents. I think that should be OK, we don’t have to explicitly list
> >out every single I-D at this stage. As we move forward and based on WG
> >discussions/progress, we can provide more detailed feedback on each
> >document. I suggest we keep this simple for now.
> >
> >
> >
> >> So, what happens next? We wait for their reply?
> >
> >This is just a response to the LS; more an information exchange on the
> >status/progress.
> >
> >
> >
> >Regards
> >Sri
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >On 7/6/18, 1:56 PM, "Arashmid Akhavain"
> <[email protected]>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>Hi Sri,
> >>
> >>We might also want to add draft-camarillo-dmm-srv6-mobile-pocs-00
> >>under "Related Documents".
> >>
> >>Also, we might want to say something like:
> >>"Although we will NOT pick a particular approach, we will be ready to
> >>provide further assistance to 3GPP regarding the technical details of
> >>different candidates."
> >>
> >>So, what happens next? We wait for their reply?
> >>
> >>Cheers,
> >>Arashmid
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: dmm [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli
> >>> (sgundave)
> >>> Sent: 06 July 2018 13:49
> >>> To: [email protected]
> >>> Subject: Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item
> >>> on User Plane Protocol in 5GC"
> >>>
> >>> We plan to send the following response to 3GPP CT4. If you have any
> >>>quick comments/corrections/suggestions, please let us know in a day.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ³
> >>> Thank you for your Liaison request (Reference: CP-173160) and for
> >>>sharing the information on the status of the CT4 study item on
> >>>user-plane protocol for 5GC. The IETF DMM working group wants to
> >>>acknowledge your request and want to share the following update.
> >>>
> >>> IETF DMM working is currently reviewing various proposals on
> >>>approaches for realizing optimizations in user-plane for mobile
> >>>packet core. These proposals include protocol specifications based on
> >>>new/existing protocols and proposals covering
> >>>requirements/analysis/comparison of various approaches. At this point
> >>>of time, some of these documents are working group documents and
> some
> >>>are individual submissions and yet to be adopted as working group
> >>>documents. Based on the working group interest, feedback
> >>>charter-scope, the working group may choose to adopt some of these
> >>>work items as working group documents and at that time will seek
> >>>feedback from 3GPP.
> >>>
> >>> We also would like to state that the DMM working group will not be in
> >>>a position to pick a single approach/solution as THE approach for
> >>>user-plane optimization. Most likely the working group may
> >>>standardize more than one approach, but will characterize each of
> >>>these approaches based on its technical capabilities and limitations.
> >>>This approach would be consistent with the approach that IETF took
> >>>with IPv6 transitioning work, where IETF standardized multiple
> >>>approaches including DSLite, NAT64, Gi-DSLite and other approaches.
> >>>
> >>> Finally, IETF would like to point 3GPP to the following documents
> >>> under consideration.
> >>>
> >>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-bogineni-dmm-optimized-mobile-user-
> plane
> >>> -
> >>> 01.tx
> >>> t (Individual submission)
> >>>
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-
> analysis
> >>> -
> >>> 00.tx
> >>> t (Individual submission)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Related Documents:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-02.txt
> >>>(Working
> >>> group document)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Link to DMM Pages:
> >>>
> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dmm/documents/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Please let us know if you need any additional information.
> >>> "
> >>>
> >>> -----
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 4/11/18, 11:16 AM, "Liaison Statement Management Tool"
> >>> <[email protected]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >Title: CP-173160: New Study Item on User Plane Protocol in 5GC
> >>> >Submission Date: 2018-04-11 URL of the IETF Web page:
> >>> >https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1572/
> >>> >Please reply by 2018-07-20
> >>> >From: Satoru Matsushima <[email protected]>
> >>> >To: Sri Gundavelli <[email protected]>,Dapeng Liu
> >>> ><[email protected]>
> >>> >Cc: Dapeng Liu <[email protected]>,Terry Manderson
> >>> ><[email protected]>,Distributed Mobility Management
> >>> Discussion
> >>> >List <[email protected]>,Sri Gundavelli <[email protected]>,Suresh
> >>> Krishnan
> >>> ><[email protected]> Response Contacts:
> >>> >[email protected],[email protected]
> >>> >Technical Contacts:
> >>> >Purpose: For action
> >>> >
> >>> >Body: 1. Overall Description:
> >>> >3GPP working group of CT4 (Core and Terminal) would like to inform
> >>> >the IETF that CT4 has initiated a study item on user plane protocol
> >>> >in 5GC for Release-16 of 5G phase 2 (see CP-173160).
> >>> >
> >>> >Based on the outcome from the IETF / 3GPP Coordination meeting at
> >>> >IETF#100, 3GPP CT4 got aware that IETF DMM WG is currently working
> >>> >on a possible candidate protocol for the 3GPP 5G user plane protocol.
> >>> >
> >>> >3GPP CT4 wants to emphasize that currently there is no related
> >>> >evaluation ongoing in 3GPP. Nevertheless, a study item was approved
> >>> >for such a study to start in the second half of 2018. The study will
> >>> >evaluate between existing solutions within 3GPP and other protocols,
> >>> >based on the Release
> >>> >16 stage 2 (system architecture) requirements.
> >>> >
> >>> >3GPP CT4 would like to point IETF DMM to the following
> >>> >specifications on GTP-U. The Release 16 stage 2 requirements are not
> >>> >yet known but it is worth looking at latest GTP-U spec which will be
> >>> >evaluated through the study as the existing protocol.
> >>> >
> >>> >€ [1] 3GPP TS 29.281 (V15.1.0): GPRS Tunnelling Protocol User
> >>> >Plane
> >>> >(GTPv1-U)
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >Following technical report provides information of how 3GPP
> >>> >considered GTP-U apply to user plane of 5G_ph1:
> >>> >
> >>> >€ [2] 3GPP TR 29.891 (V15.0.0): 5G System Phase 1; CT4 Aspects
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >Furthermore, 3GPP would like to give the following general guidance
> >>> >to IETF DMM, regarding user plane transport within 3GPP networks.
> >>> >These are technical specifications that include also the necessary
> >>> >information to understand which architectural, QoS, security-related
> >>> >and high-level requirements GTP-U currently complies to within
> 5G_ph1.
> >>> >
> >>> >€ [3] 3GPP TS 23.501 (V15.0.0): System Architecture for the 5G
> >>> >System
> >>> >€ [4] 3GPP TS 23.502 (V15.0.0): Procedures for the 5G System
> >>> >€ [5] 3GPP TS 23.503 (V15.0.0): Policy and Charging Framework for
> >>> >the
> >>> 5G
> >>> >System
> >>> >€ [6] 3GPP TS 33.501 (V0.6.0): Security Architecture (work in
> >>>progress)
> >>> >
> >>> >2. Actions:
> >>> >To IETF DMM:
> >>> >ACTION: CT4 respectfully asks IETF DMM to provide any information
> >>> that
> >>> >may be relevant to the above CT4 work by July 2018.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >3. Date of Next CT and CT4 Meetings:
> >>> >CT4#83 26th Feb 2nd Mar 2018 Montreal, CAN
> >>> >CT#79 19th 20th Mar 2018 Chennai, India
> >>> >CT4#84 16th 20th April 2018 Kunming, China
> >>> >CT4#85 21st 25th May 2018 Osaka, Japan
> >>> >CT#80 11th 12th June 2018 La Jolla, USA
> >>> >CT4#85-bis 9th 13th July 2018 TBD, France
> >>> >CT4#86 20st 24th Aug 2018 TBD, USA
> >>> >Attachments:
> >>> >
> >>> > CP-180116
> >>> >
> >>> >https://www.ietf.org/lib/dt/documents/LIAISON/liaison-2018-04-11-
> 3gp
> >>> >p-t
> >>> >sgc
> >>> >t-ct4-dmm-cp-173160-new-study-item-on-user-plane-protocol-in-5gc-
> att
> >>> >ach
> >>> >men
> >>> >t-1.doc
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> dmm mailing list
> >>> [email protected]
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
> >
_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
