In line,
Joel
On 1/6/2021 5:29 PM, Kaippallimalil John wrote:
Joel,
This draft is not attempting to lay out a new architecture. The figure and
architecture section are there to provide context for the reader.
The draft is also not asserting that these are the only ways to solve the issue.
The last portion of the draft only refers to applicability since several IETF
technology (and even non IETF data plane like L2) may be used E2E in the
transport underlay corresponding to a 3GPP overlay (F1/W1, N3, N9).
The draft is agnostic to any specific underlay. It is concerned with how the
slice type/QoS properties between 3GPP provider and subscriber (UE) is realized
as the data plane GTP packets (overlay) traverse one or more transport underlay
segments on path.
At the veyr least, the draft needs significant rewording so taht it
clealry explains what you are saying here. As currently worded, it does
not lead the reader to that understanding. And as such, calls into
doubt what the supporters of adoption believe they are adopting.
The dmm working group seems to be a natural choice as folks there have
background and expertise in both IETF and 3GPP technologies.
A WG looking like "the natural place" for something does not mean that
said working group actually has the given work in its charter. For
example, there were quite a number of drafts which were presented in the
SFC WG as the natural place for initial discussion, but which did not
fit within the SFC charter and therefore were not adopted by SFC as work
items.
Best Regards,
John
_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
