+1 On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 9:53 AM Arashmid Akhavain < arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com> wrote:
> I agree with the current LS > > > > Arashmid > > > > *From:* dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Sri Gundavelli > (sgundave) > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 17, 2018 3:49 PM > *To:* dmm@ietf.org > *Subject:* Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on > User Plane Protocol in 5GC" > > > > 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)" <sgund...@cisco.com> 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" > <kalyani.bogin...@verizonwireless..com<mailto:kalyani.bogin...@verizonwireless.com>> > 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:dmm-boun...@ietf.org <dmm-boun...@ietf.org>] On Behalf Of > Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) > > Sent: Monday, July 9, 2018 11:51 AM > > To: Arashmid Akhavain > <arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com<mailto:arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com>>; > dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org> > > 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" > <arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com<mailto:arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com>> > > 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:sgund...@cisco.com > <sgund...@cisco.com>] > > Sent: 08 July 2018 19:29 > > To: Arashmid Akhavain > <arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com<mailto:arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com>>; > dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org> > > 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 > dmm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >
_______________________________________________ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
