Hi Eric, Thanks! Anyone could have missed the text around update, and so no issue. Appreciate your reviews and all the discussion on this document.
Regards Sri On 1/13/23, 6:44 AM, "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyn...@cisco.com <mailto:evyn...@cisco.com>> wrote: Sri, and other proponents, Please accept my apologies for the first part of my DISCUSS. Indeed, Sri had already updated his shepherd's write-up with the history & reasoning of intended status change: I am so use to jump to some section of the template that I failed to even notice the leading text. Consider this point addressed. I.e., the remaining points are still unaddressed and must be resolved (they are easy to resolve anyway). Regards -éric On 10/01/2023, 19:53, "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <sgund...@cisco.com <mailto:sgund...@cisco.com> <mailto:sgund...@cisco.com <mailto:sgund...@cisco.com>>> wrote: Eric, Many thanks for your review. I am responding to one of your DISCUSS comments, which is your observations on the Shepherd note. The initial note, based on the established consensus at that time, was to keep the document as a Proposed Standard. Shepherd note included the justification for the same. Subsequently, when we decided to downgrade the status to Informational, new text was added to the same note stating the reasons for the downgrade to informational status. This approach preserves the original intent and also reflects the current status and the consensus. I did not see a good reason for deleting the old note and adding a complete rewritten text, and further making a new argument that it should now be informational. The original argument was for a status that required higher level of justification and I standby that view, and a downgrade is more a reflection of the consensus. Please let us know if you think there is loss of information in this approach. Thanks Sri On 1/5/23, 3:43 AM, "Éric Vyncke via Datatracker" <nore...@ietf.org <mailto:nore...@ietf.org> <mailto:nore...@ietf.org <mailto:nore...@ietf.org>> <mailto:nore...@ietf.org <mailto:nore...@ietf.org> <mailto:nore...@ietf.org <mailto:nore...@ietf.org>>>> wrote: Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-23: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ <https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/> <https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/> <https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/>> <https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/> <https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/>> <https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/>> <https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/&gt;>> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane/> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane/> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane/>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane/> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane/>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane/>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane/&gt;>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-23 CC @evyncke Thank you for the work put into this document. I always like the use of innovative technologies. Please find below two blocking DISCUSS points (easy to address), some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education), and some nits. Special thanks to Sri Gundavelli for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the very descriptive WG consensus ***but*** the justification of the intended status is plain wrong as it is about the original intended status. I hope that this review helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric ## DISCUSS As noted in https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/ <https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/> <https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/> <https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/>> <https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/> <https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/>> <https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/>> <https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/&gt;>>, a DISCUSS ballot is a request to have a discussion on the following topics: ### Intended status The shepherd's write-up is about a standard track intended status, but this document text & meta-data say informal. I know the sad history of the intended status as well as that the IETF Last Call was done a 2nd time for 'informational', but I am afraid that the shepherd's write-up must be updated. ### Section 2.2 What is "gNB" ? (I know the term, but a reference and definition should be given) Unsure how to parse the bullet list as `SRH[n]: A shorter ` appears in the middle of apparently a single list. Or is it two lists ? Then what is the relationship with the 2nd list ? (possibly just a formatting issue). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ## COMMENTS ### Abstract The tone of the abstract looks more like a promotional rather than a factual description. Please consider rewriting it in a more factual way. Also add text about the non-normative nature of this I-D. ### Section 1 This section contains the 'instruction' term, which is seems to me more related to network programming (RFC 8986). The following sections are also about network programming. So, let's be clear and refer to both SRH and network programming. ### Section 2.1 Please explain what a 'DN' is. Also, usually the terminology section is not only about acronym expansion but also about *explanations* or *descriptions* of the terms. ### Section 3 What is "NFVi" ? ### Section 4 About the "a reference architecture" is it the 3GPP architecture (per figure 1) or the architecture defined in this I-D ? I suspect the former, but then let's be clear in the text and in the section title. `The 5G packet core architecture as shown is based on the latest 3GPP standards at the time of writing this draft` I could be wrong and will be happy to stand corrected, but it seems to me that 5G is already deployed, hence the `at the time of writing this draft` is not really relevant. `A UE gets its IP address from the DHCP block of its UPF.` is this sentence also applicable for IPv6 ? I had in mind (again happy to stand corrected) that for IPv6 a /64 was assigned per UE, i.e., not an "IP address". ### Section 5 Suggest s/In order to simplify the adoption of SRv6, we present/This document presents/ The rest of the section also uses "we", which is not the usual way to write an IETF document. ### Section 5.1 Please expand "TEID". What is "QFI" ? Explaining how this mechanism is different from plain IPv[4/6] in IPv6 would benefit the reader. ### Section 5.1.1 It seems that `(U2::, U1::2) (Z,A)` describes an encapsulation (IP in IP), but this representation was not explained in section 2.2. `to push an SRH` unsure what is the exact meaning of this wording ? Is it a reference to 'reduced SRH' ? ### Section 5.2 What are `stationary residential meters` ? Is it about electrical meters ? or any similar meters ? ``` The gNB MAY resolve the IP address received via the control plane into a SID list using a mechanism like PCEP, DNS-lookup, LISP control-plane or others. The resolution mechanism is out of the scope of this document. ``` Suggest to only use the last sentence and not enumerate the possible mechanisms. ### Section 5.2.1 I am afraid that I fail to understand what the address B is ? What is "PSP" ? (i.e., add it to the terminology section or point to the right reference). ### Section 5.4 As this is not really about interworking (at least to my definition), I would suggest to use "GTP-U Transport over SRv6" (mainly cosmetic). ### Section 10 AFAIK about 3GPP, the 3GPP 'packet core' is also a very limited/closed domain. Does it change/help the boundaries of the SRv6 limited domain ? ### Appendix A Like Paul Wouters, this section is really about an implementation status section: useful but should probably be removed before publication by the RFC editor. ## NITS ### Section 3 s/architetural/architectural/ ### e.g. s/e.g./e.g.,/ ## Notes This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the [`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into individual GitHub issues. [ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md <https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md> <https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md> <https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md>> <https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md> <https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md>> <https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md>> <https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md&gt;>> [ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments <https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments> <https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments> <https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments>> <https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments> <https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments>> <https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments>> <https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments&gt;>> _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
