On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 2:03 PM David Allan I <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Shunsuke: > > First off I think there is a charter problem in that there are no > milestones that are not 18 months out of date. That is independent of > draft-hmm. > > If I look at the list of topics that the charter suggests the WG could > produce draft on I don't see a fit with any of them. The closest being: > Distributed mobility management deployment models and scenarios: > describe the target high-level network architectures and > deployment models where distributed mobility management > protocol solutions would apply > > However the charter describes a DMM solution as one being: > "The IETF Distributed Mobility Management (DMM) working group > (WG) specifies solutions for IP networks so that traffic between > mobile > and correspondent nodes can take an optimal route." > > I cannot connect the content of draft-hmm with these objectives. At the > moment it appears clear that the draft has been written for the purpose of > advocacy explicitly to 3GPP of user plane protocols. I suppose it could be > claimed to describe parts of the 5G architecture and that is useful, but a > lot would need to be expunged from the draft before that part of it was > useful to capture for archival or educational purposes. > > The draft's primary > claim to fame Wow! Claim to fame. I like that, very classy :-) Behcet > from what I can tell is the conclusion that support for SSC mode 3 would > benefit from a UP change to permit mp2p tunneling. Now I will certainly not > claim to be an expert, and was not in the room when any of this was > discussed in 3GPP or codified (full disclaimer, never attended a meeting). > But my understanding of SSC mode 3 and branching is that this is a > mechanism to support a network initiated change of UPF in a make before > break fashion and is likely only a temporary situation. The actual > practice being to set up the branch point and new UPF, and the UE lets all > old prefix correspondent sessions quiesce, while initiating all new > sessions with the new prefix, at which point connectivity to the old UPF > can be torn down . As such I would consider suggesting this is a serious > problem that requires a complete UP change from RAN to DN is a questionable > and possibly dangerous conclusion. I would also observe that any sort of > solution to mp2p tunneling for the 5GC does not appear to be part of DMM's > objectives as described in the charter; it claims to reduce state for a > rare operational procedure, and is not a solution to optimal routing of UE > traffic. > > I hope this helps > Dave > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Shunsuke Homma <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 1:19 AM > To: [email protected]; David Allan I <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of > draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as DMM WG document > > Hi Dave, > > Thank you for reviewing our draft and sending your thought for the > adoption. > > When I reviewed the charter I couldn't find any text to make the draft to > be out of scope. Could you please elaborate it with the text in the charter? > > Best regards, > > Shunsuke > > > On 2018/11/15 6:52, David Allan I wrote: > > HI > > > > AFAIK 3GPP CT4 is looking for work it can adopt, and has indicated > > that it wishes to perform the analysis itself. When they were directed > > to this document in the recent IETF DMM liaison, it resulted in a > > liaison reply clearly indicated they would define their own criteria. > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1590/ > > > > However in the draft it states in the introduction: "However we > > believe that to provide adequate information for 3GPP, we need to > > clearly understand what the current user plane protocol is in Release > > 15, and architectural requirements for the user plane." And in the > > conclusion "Our conclusion here is that we suggest the UP protocol > > study work in 3GPP takes into account the evaluation aspects described > > in Section 5.", there is more, but I do not feel a need to be pedantic > about it. > > > > So the purpose of this draft seems to explicitly be to do work for > > 3GPP that they have explicitly said they DO NOT WANT. > > > > At the same time I do not see anything in the charter that suggests we > > should be doing this work either. It would appear to have little to > > do with DMM's chartered direction. > > > > As such I am opposed to adoption of the draft. > > > > Cheers > > > > Dave > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > dmm mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm > > > > > -- > ---------------------------------- > Shunsuke Homma > <[email protected]> > TEL: +81 422 59 3486 > FAX: +81 422 60 7460 > > NTT Network Service Systems Labs. > Musashino city, Tokyo, Japan > ---------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > dmm mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >
_______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
