Dear Sri & WG Thx Pable for the minutes and they look good to me.
I just want to further elaborate on some of my reposses: a. Keeping the MTNC-ID in the packet header creates complications for L2 (mid/backhaul) and V4 (backhaul) only scenarios. This was discussed in IETF105 presentation (issue/discussion) and IETF106 presentation with various options before settling on to the current approach. I standby on my response to Pablo's question and the aspect mostly de-associated now. b. Most of this work is orthogonal to overarching and generic slicing effort in routing WGs (including various YANG models). The scope of this document is much narrow and in the mobility domain and section 3 is mostly applicable to the framework proposed, for GTP-based UDP encap environments, currently used in N3 and N9 interfaces. As I said we would continue to take comments to address further, if any suggestions/proposals. Many thx for your feedback/comments. -- Uma C. On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 5:00 PM Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) <sgundave= [email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Pablo for taking capturing the meeting minutes. > > > > https://codimd.ietf.org/notes-ietf-109-dmm# > > > > WG - Please review > > > > Sri > > > > > > *From: *dmm <[email protected]> on behalf of "Sri Gundavelli > (sgundave)" <[email protected]> > *Date: *Friday, November 13, 2020 at 7:00 AM > *To: *dmm <[email protected]> > *Subject: *[DMM] FW: dmm - Requested session has been scheduled for IETF > 109 > > > > Please review the agenda for IETF 109. > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/109/materials/agenda-109-dmm-00.txt > > > > Satoru & Sri > > > > > _______________________________________________ > dmm mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >
_______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
