All: Thank you for the discussion today in the DMM meeting on the Liaison response to 3GPP CT4 group. There was one comment at the microphone that we should not reference individual I-D's (non working documents) in the response. But, as we discussed and per the below summary, we have explained the criteria for inclusion / exclusion of I-D's. If you still object to it, please let us know. We are extending the deadline for comments till Friday, 20th of July.
Dapeng & Sri Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User Plane Protocol in 5GC" "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <[email protected]> Mon, 09 July 2018 17:35 UTCShow header<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmm/#> Ok! Thank you Kalyani and Arashmid. Change-1: Add to the last sentence. "Also please provide any evaluation criteria that could help us in progressing our work to support 5G." Change-2: Add to the second sentence, of second paragraph + " and building proof of concept demos." Now, I need to pull this back for edits. Let me do that. I hope this makes a difference in CT4 discussions. All - Let us know if you have any issue with these additions, or to the original proposed text. Sri On 7/9/18, 9:41 AM, "Bogineni, Kalyani" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Sri: Here is one edit in the last sentence to allow IETF to take feedback from 3GPP: "Please let us know if you need any additional information. Also please provide any evaluation criteria that could help us in progressing our work to support 5G." Kalyani -----Original Message----- From: dmm [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) Sent: Monday, July 9, 2018 11:51 AM To: Arashmid Akhavain <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [E] Re: [DMM] 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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[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
_______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
