Hi Sri, A minor addition to the end of this sentence would perhaps do the trick.
These proposals include protocol specifications based on new/existing protocols, proposals covering requirements/analysis/comparison of various approaches, and building proof of concept demos. Arashmid > -----Original Message----- > From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 09 July 2018 11:51 > 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/Kalyani, > > Thank you both for your feedback. > > Yes, we thought its better to keep the focus on problem statement and > requirement analysis. We don’t want to prematurely high-light any solution > documents to SDO. Which did not go through proper review process, as it > will only result in confusing them. > > > > Having said that however, I think a general statement about proof of > >concepts can help the cause. > > The current text provides an high-level update and status on where the WG > is going, and a also a pointer to all documents under review. I am personally > not keen on making additional edits, unless you guys think the change is > absolutely needed and will make a difference in CT4 discussion. > So, if you are keen on seeing any such changes, please propose the exact > text. But, if you have no objections to the current response, we can let this > go. In future liaisons we can have detailed technical exchanges. > > > Sri > > > > On 7/9/18, 7:23 AM, "Arashmid Akhavain" > <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >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
