Hi Joel, Thank you for your feedback. I understand your concern / objection is not technical, but more a procedural one, and so I thought I should respond to this.
The document was reviewed in IETF, and was adopted based on the WG feedback and after establishing consensus. Lot of work and efforts went into this document over the last 2+ years from the working group. IMO, the document went through a proper IETF document development process. Now, Regarding the comments related to 3GPP inputs, the document was presented in 3GPP and is documented in 3GPP TR 29.892. So, I am reasonably certain, a RFC publication of this document is not going to spring a surprise to 3GPP. On the comment we should work based on explicit inputs, I personally do not agree with that view. IMO, we at IETF need to make efforts to publish new tools that are applicable to 3GPP, 802.11 or any other access. That effort should not be conditional to 3GPP or other SDO approving that work. That will not do good to IETF goals, of building a better internet. IETF is not an extension to 3GPP body, and their endorsement is not needed for every document that we publish. 3GPP can absolutely choose to keep GTP-U for another 20 years and that is their prerogative. Publication of this spec is not altering that order. FWIW, we should invest in the right technologies, some will make it and some won’t. At this time I am marking your objection on procedural grounds. We will discuss this input with our AD, as part of review of other WG feedback. Thanks Sri (DMM WG Chair) On 4/7/21, 11:27 AM, "Joel M. Halpern" <[email protected]> wrote: As I believe I said earlier, I consider this work to be inappropriate for the IETF and the working group. Developing SRv6 is an IETF activity. We have done and are doing that. Developing any needed extensions to address 3GPP requirements should be done in conjunction with 3GPP based on their requirements. 3GPP has not expressed any such requirements. When other standards bodies have redefined the architecture of our protocols, we (the IETF) have objected. And for good reasons. Therefore, we owe other standards bodies the same respect. We should not produce standards (this is a standards track document) that modify other bodies architectures. Yours, Joel On 4/7/2021 1:35 PM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote: > Working Group: > > As we discussed in the last IETF meeting, we are issuingWGLCon > draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-11. > > The document went through several revisions and there were good amount > of reviews on this document. I am very pleased with the quality of this > document. The authors have addressed all the comments and there are no > open issues that we are tracking at this time. We believe the document > is ready for IESG reviews and like to confirm the same from the working > group. > > The following message commences a two weekWGLCfor all feedback. > > Document Link: > > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-11.txt > <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-11.txt> > > Please post any comments/concerns on this document. > > Thanks! > > 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
