Section 5.1 and 5.2 are my primary concern.
The structure of 5.3 makes it less clear, but I believe that the fact
that the UPFs speak SRv6 instead of GTP means that they have the same
problem. (There may be descriptive techniques such as treating the SRGW
as part of the UPF, and therefore the use of SRv6 as internal to the
UPF, which would not have the problems. Depending upon how it is written.)
Section 5.4 is fine.
Yours,
Joel
On 4/7/2022 9:52 AM, Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) wrote:
Hi Joel,
Could you please confirm which sub-sections of the draft do your comment
apply-to? Thank you.
Cheers,
Pablo.
-----Original Message-----
From: dmm <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern
Sent: viernes, 1 de abril de 2022 17:28
To: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) <[email protected]>;
[email protected]
Subject: Re: [DMM] Second WGLC on draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane
As far as I can tell, this document still attempts to redefine 3GPP standards
in an IETF standards track document. That is in my view unacceptable.
Yes, those sections are labelled "informational". But they are still the same
content, presented the same way. Pretending they are informational in a standards track
document is simply not sufficient.
If they are really informational, pull them out to a separate informational
document. And we can then debate the value of publishing those non-standard
approaches. (Personally, I do not see the value.)
Yours,
Joel
On 4/1/2022 11:13 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote:
Folks:
We have issued a WGLC on draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane in April of
last year. Based on the feedback and the comments from the WG, we
chose to hold the document so the authors can resolve the identified
issues from that LC. The authors have worked with the reviewers and
have revised the document. They believe that there are no open issues.
We are issuing a second last call. This message commences a one-week
WGLC for all feedback. Please provide any additional feedback you may have.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplan
e-19
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-upla
ne-19>
Sri
Chair DMM WG
*From: *Sri Gundavelli <[email protected]>
*Date: *Wednesday, April 7, 2021 at 10:35 AM
*To: *"[email protected]" <[email protected]>
*Subject: *WGLC on draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-11
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.t
xt
<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
_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
