Thank you all. We will keep the current text. This discussion is now closed.
Sri On 7/19/18, 6:59 AM, "Giovanna Carofiglio (gcarofig)" <gcarofig=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: >+1. > >Regards, >Giovanna >________________________________________ >From: dmm <dmm-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Jordan Augé ><jordan.auge=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> >Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 3:56 PM >To: dmm@ietf.org >Cc: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) >Subject: Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on >User Plane Protocol in 5GC" > >I am in support of it too. > >Cheers, >-- Jordan > >> 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<mailto: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.Bogineni@VerizonWire >>le >> >>ss.com<mailto:kalyani.bogin...@verizonwireless.com%3cmailto:Kalyani.Bogin >>eni >> @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] 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<mailto: >>ar >> ashmid.akhav...@huawei.com%3cmailto:arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com>>>; >> >>dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org%3cmailto:d...@ietf.or >>g> >> > >> >> 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<mailto: >>ar >> ashmid.akhav...@huawei.com%3cmailto: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] >> >> Sent: 08 July 2018 19:29 >> >> To: Arashmid Akhavain >> >><arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com<mailto:arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com<mailto: >>ar >> ashmid.akhav...@huawei.com%3cmailto:arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com>>>; >> >>dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org%3cmailto:d...@ietf.or >>g> >> > >> >> 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
