Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as DMM WG document

[Shunsuke Homma]

Hello Sri and Dapeng,

Thank you for your announcement. I've uploaded the draft with renaming. 
We can start updating for reflecting feedback on the adoption call after 
your approval.


If you have any problem, please let me know.

Best regards,

Shunsuke


On 2019/01/05 13:54, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote:

Folks - Thanks for all the feedback. My co-chair, Dapeng has reviewed all
the posted emails on this adoption call (and with inputs from our AD), he
believes there is consensus to adopt this document as a Working group
document. There were few concerns from few folks on taking up this work,
but there are no strong objections or convincing arguments against this
draft adoption. We therefore have decided to take up this work.  We did
have a offline chat with Dave Allan on how to address his concerns. We
will ask the authors to work with Dave and others, and address all those
comments before we complete this work. The current version of the document
is just a starting point and the WG will have enough opportunities to
address all the comments.

Authors: Please submit, draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02, as
draft-ietf-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-00.txt (Informational Track)

Regards
Dapeng and Sri











2018/12/14 15:14、Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) のメール:

Folks – Sorry for the delay on this. Given the number of support votes
for the company I am affiliated with, I thought it would be best for my
co-chair Dapeng reviews this feedback, and in consultation with the AD,
makes the decision on this. We will close it soon.

Sri



From: Sri Gundavelli 
Date: Wednesday, December 5, 2018 at 9:18 AM
To: "dmm@ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of
draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as DMM WG document

Thanks for all the feedback. The adoption call is now closed. We will
review the feedback and decide on the next steps.

Sri



From: dmm  on behalf of Sri Gundavelli

Date: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 10:42 AM
To: "dmm@ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of
draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as DMM WG document

Gentle reminder.  The below adoption call will close next week, the 4th
of December, 2018. Please provide your feedback.


Sri



From: dmm  on behalf of Sri Gundavelli

Date: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 at 4:34 PM
To: "dmm@ietf.org" 
Subject: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02
as DMM WG document

Folks:

During IETF 102 and 103, the authors of the document,
draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis.txt have provided the overview of this
document. The chairs felt there is good amount of work that went into
the document and the analysis has value. The document quality is very
high. There was also generally good feedback and interest for the work

>from the community. We are therefore considering adopting this document

as a DMM WG document, to be moved on Informational Standards track.

There were also few concerns/comments on the 1.) Relevance of this
document to 3GPP in the immediate time frame 2.) Archival Value of the
document 3.) Target Audience  - IETF or 3GPP.
On #3, there was also a view that the document should be restructured
to make it IETF focussed.  With this background, we would like to ask
the WG to provide some feedback on their interest for this work. Please
provide substantial comments as why this should be adopted, or why it
should not be adopted. If there is interest, and if there are no other
concerns from AD/IESG/Others, then we may take up this work at some
point.

Draft Pointer:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02


The adoption call will end on 4th of December, 2019.


Regards
Dapping & Sri
___
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm




___
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm


___
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm




--
--
Shunsuke Homma

TEL: +81 422 59 3486
FAX: +81 422 60 7460

NTT Network Service Systems Labs.
Musashino city, Tokyo, Japan
--

___
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm

Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as DMM WG document

[Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)]

Folks - Thanks for all the feedback. My co-chair, Dapeng has reviewed all
the posted emails on this adoption call (and with inputs from our AD), he
believes there is consensus to adopt this document as a Working group
document. There were few concerns from few folks on taking up this work,
but there are no strong objections or convincing arguments against this
draft adoption. We therefore have decided to take up this work.  We did
have a offline chat with Dave Allan on how to address his concerns. We
will ask the authors to work with Dave and others, and address all those
comments before we complete this work. The current version of the document
is just a starting point and the WG will have enough opportunities to
address all the comments.

Authors: Please submit, draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02, as
draft-ietf-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-00.txt (Informational Track)

Regards
Dapeng and Sri




>
>
>
>>
>>> 2018/12/14 15:14、Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) のメール:
>>> 
>>> Folks – Sorry for the delay on this. Given the number of support votes
>>>for the company I am affiliated with, I thought it would be best for my
>>>co-chair Dapeng reviews this feedback, and in consultation with the AD,
>>>makes the decision on this. We will close it soon.
>>> 
>>> Sri
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> From: Sri Gundavelli 
>>> Date: Wednesday, December 5, 2018 at 9:18 AM
>>> To: "dmm@ietf.org" 
>>> Subject: Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of
>>>draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as DMM WG document
>>> 
>>> Thanks for all the feedback. The adoption call is now closed. We will
>>>review the feedback and decide on the next steps.
>>> 
>>> Sri
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> From: dmm  on behalf of Sri Gundavelli
>>>
>>> Date: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 10:42 AM
>>> To: "dmm@ietf.org" 
>>> Subject: Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of
>>>draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as DMM WG document
>>> 
>>> Gentle reminder.  The below adoption call will close next week, the 4th
>>>of December, 2018. Please provide your feedback.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Sri
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> From: dmm  on behalf of Sri Gundavelli
>>>
>>> Date: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 at 4:34 PM
>>> To: "dmm@ietf.org" 
>>> Subject: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02
>>>as DMM WG document
>>> 
>>> Folks:
>>> 
>>> During IETF 102 and 103, the authors of the document,
>>>draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis.txt have provided the overview of this
>>>document. The chairs felt there is good amount of work that went into
>>>the document and the analysis has value. The document quality is very
>>>high. There was also generally good feedback and interest for the work
>>>from the community. We are therefore considering adopting this document
>>>as a DMM WG document, to be moved on Informational Standards track.
>>> 
>>> There were also few concerns/comments on the 1.) Relevance of this
>>>document to 3GPP in the immediate time frame 2.) Archival Value of the
>>>document 3.) Target Audience  - IETF or 3GPP.
>>> On #3, there was also a view that the document should be restructured
>>>to make it IETF focussed.  With this background, we would like to ask
>>>the WG to provide some feedback on their interest for this work. Please
>>>provide substantial comments as why this should be adopted, or why it
>>>should not be adopted. If there is interest, and if there are no other
>>>concerns from AD/IESG/Others, then we may take up this work at some
>>>point. 
>>> 
>>> Draft Pointer: 
>>>https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The adoption call will end on 4th of December, 2019.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Regards
>>> Dapping & Sri
>>> ___
>>> dmm mailing list
>>> dmm@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>>
>
>___
>dmm mailing list
>dmm@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm

___
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm

Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as DMM WG document

[Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)]

Hi Satoru-San,

Thank you for your comments. All the LS statements received from 3GPP with
regards to the work item on, User Plane Optimization study, will be taken
into consideration in this decision process.


Sri



On 12/17/18, 1:19 AM, "Satoru Matsushima" 
wrote:

>Thank you Sri, and all,
>
>During that, let me make clear some questions and comments. First one:
>
>> So the purpose of this draft seems to explicitly be to do work for 3GPP
>>that they have explicitly said they DO NOT WANT.
>
>It’s wrong. In the LS of CP-173160 requested any information regarding
>user plane. So please re-read the following:
>
>> 2. Actions:
>> To IETF DMM:
>> ACTION: CT4 respectfully asks IETF DMM to provide any
>>information that may be relevant to the above CT4 work by July 2018.
>> 
>
>And the LS of C4-185491 didn’t say they don’t want. It just said that the
>evaluation criteria for the user plane protocol study (FS_UPPS) in 5GC
>shall be defined by 3GPP CT4. It should be very natural and responsible.
>
>Second one is that:
>
>> Particularly the discussion around slicing is very speculative. And
>>conclusion thereof that “The expected evaluation points from this aspect
>>should be whether the candidate protocols can support to indicate a
>>network slice in the UP packets.” Firstly, IETF doesn’t have any work on
>>slicing, on the contrary. Secondly, the need for such indication in the
>>3GPP has been discussed in the ongoing 3GPP CT4 meeting this week with
>>fully opposing views for such network slice indication. (Network slicing
>>is supported in 3GPP Rel-15 already, and nothing new was defined in the
>>user plane in Rel-15. There was no need for that!)
>
>It looks not accurate view of the latest discussion in 3GPP CT4. CT4
>agreed not to introduce any NEW identifiers to indicate network slice for
>5GC and its transport. Existing identifiers can be expected for that
>purpose in user plane.
>
>
>Hope it helps our understanding correct.
>
>Best regards,
>--satoru
>
>
>
>
>> 2018/12/14 15:14、Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) のメール:
>> 
>> Folks – Sorry for the delay on this. Given the number of support votes
>>for the company I am affiliated with, I thought it would be best for my
>>co-chair Dapeng reviews this feedback, and in consultation with the AD,
>>makes the decision on this. We will close it soon.
>> 
>> Sri
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: Sri Gundavelli 
>> Date: Wednesday, December 5, 2018 at 9:18 AM
>> To: "dmm@ietf.org" 
>> Subject: Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of
>>draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as DMM WG document
>> 
>> Thanks for all the feedback. The adoption call is now closed. We will
>>review the feedback and decide on the next steps.
>> 
>> Sri
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: dmm  on behalf of Sri Gundavelli
>>
>> Date: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 10:42 AM
>> To: "dmm@ietf.org" 
>> Subject: Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of
>>draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as DMM WG document
>> 
>> Gentle reminder.  The below adoption call will close next week, the 4th
>>of December, 2018. Please provide your feedback.
>> 
>> 
>> Sri
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: dmm  on behalf of Sri Gundavelli
>>
>> Date: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 at 4:34 PM
>> To: "dmm@ietf.org" 
>> Subject: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02
>>as DMM WG document
>> 
>> Folks:
>> 
>> During IETF 102 and 103, the authors of the document,
>>draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis.txt have provided the overview of this
>>document. The chairs felt there is good amount of work that went into
>>the document and the analysis has value. The document quality is very
>>high. There was also generally good feedback and interest for the work
>>from the community. We are therefore considering adopting this document
>>as a DMM WG document, to be moved on Informational Standards track.
>> 
>> There were also few concerns/comments on the 1.) Relevance of this
>>document to 3GPP in the immediate time frame 2.) Archival Value of the
>>document 3.) Target Audience  - IETF or 3GPP.
>> On #3, there was also a view that the document should be restructured
>>to make it IETF focussed.  With this background, we would like to ask
>>the WG to provide some feedback on their interest for this work. Please
>>provide substantial comments as why this should be adopted, or why it
>>should not be adopted. If there is interest, and if there are no other
>>concerns from AD/IESG/Others, then we may take up this work at some
>>point. 
>> 
>> Draft Pointer: 
>>https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02
>> 
>> 
>> The adoption call will end on 4th of December, 2019.
>> 
>> 
>> Regards
>> Dapping & Sri
>> ___
>> dmm mailing list
>> dmm@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>

___
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm

Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as DMM WG document

[Satoru Matsushima]

More precisely on the latter point,

> 
>> Particularly the discussion around slicing is very speculative. And 
>> conclusion thereof that “The expected evaluation points from this aspect 
>> should be whether the candidate protocols can support to indicate a network 
>> slice in the UP packets.” Firstly, IETF doesn’t have any work on slicing, on 
>> the contrary. Secondly, the need for such indication in the 3GPP has been 
>> discussed in the ongoing 3GPP CT4 meeting this week with fully opposing 
>> views for such network slice indication. (Network slicing is supported in 
>> 3GPP Rel-15 already, and nothing new was defined in the user plane in 
>> Rel-15. There was no need for that!)
> 
> It looks not accurate view of the latest discussion in 3GPP CT4. CT4 agreed 
> not to introduce any NEW identifiers to indicate network slice for 5GC and 
> its transport. Existing identifiers can be expected for that purpose in user 
> plane.

3GPP CT4 sees Network Slice consists of 5GC slice and transport slice while 
what's the transport slice is out of scope. As the 5GC control plane has 
maintained the context of 5GC slice, no identifier is needed in user plane to 
indicate *5GC slice*. Existing identifiers like VIDs, MPLS labels and IP 
addresses can be expected to indicate transport slices if it exists.

Cheers,
--satoru



> 
> 
> Hope it helps our understanding correct.
> 
> Best regards,
> --satoru
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 2018/12/14 15:14、Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) のメール:
>> 
>> Folks – Sorry for the delay on this. Given the number of support votes for 
>> the company I am affiliated with, I thought it would be best for my co-chair 
>> Dapeng reviews this feedback, and in consultation with the AD, makes the 
>> decision on this. We will close it soon. 
>> 
>> Sri
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: Sri Gundavelli 
>> Date: Wednesday, December 5, 2018 at 9:18 AM
>> To: "dmm@ietf.org" 
>> Subject: Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 
>> as DMM WG document
>> 
>> Thanks for all the feedback. The adoption call is now closed. We will review 
>> the feedback and decide on the next steps.
>> 
>> Sri
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: dmm  on behalf of Sri Gundavelli 
>> 
>> Date: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 10:42 AM
>> To: "dmm@ietf.org" 
>> Subject: Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 
>> as DMM WG document
>> 
>> Gentle reminder.  The below adoption call will close next week, the 4th of 
>> December, 2018. Please provide your feedback. 
>> 
>> 
>> Sri
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: dmm  on behalf of Sri Gundavelli 
>> 
>> Date: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 at 4:34 PM
>> To: "dmm@ietf.org" 
>> Subject: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as 
>> DMM WG document
>> 
>> Folks:
>> 
>> During IETF 102 and 103, the authors of the document, 
>> draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis.txt have provided the overview of this 
>> document. The chairs felt there is good amount of work that went into the 
>> document and the analysis has value. The document quality is very high. 
>> There was also generally good feedback and interest for the work from the 
>> community. We are therefore considering adopting this document as a DMM WG 
>> document, to be moved on Informational Standards track.  
>> 
>> There were also few concerns/comments on the 1.) Relevance of this document 
>> to 3GPP in the immediate time frame 2.) Archival Value of the document 3.) 
>> Target Audience  - IETF or 3GPP. 
>> On #3, there was also a view that the document should be restructured to 
>> make it IETF focussed.  With this background, we would like to ask the WG to 
>> provide some feedback on their interest for this work. Please provide 
>> substantial comments as why this should be adopted, or why it should not be 
>> adopted. If there is interest, and if there are no other concerns from 
>> AD/IESG/Others, then we may take up this work at some point. 
>> 
>> Draft Pointer: 
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02
>> 
>> 
>> The adoption call will end on 4th of December, 2019.
>> 
>> 
>> Regards
>> Dapping & Sri
>> ___
>> dmm mailing list
>> dmm@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
> 

___
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm

Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as DMM WG document

[Satoru Matsushima]

Thank you Sri, and all,

During that, let me make clear some questions and comments. First one:

> So the purpose of this draft seems to explicitly be to do work for 3GPP that 
> they have explicitly said they DO NOT WANT.

It’s wrong. In the LS of CP-173160 requested any information regarding user 
plane. So please re-read the following:

> 2. Actions:
> To IETF DMM:
> ACTION: CT4 respectfully asks IETF DMM to provide any information 
> that may be relevant to the above CT4 work by July 2018.
> 

And the LS of C4-185491 didn’t say they don’t want. It just said that the 
evaluation criteria for the user plane protocol study (FS_UPPS) in 5GC shall be 
defined by 3GPP CT4. It should be very natural and responsible.

Second one is that:

> Particularly the discussion around slicing is very speculative. And 
> conclusion thereof that “The expected evaluation points from this aspect 
> should be whether the candidate protocols can support to indicate a network 
> slice in the UP packets.” Firstly, IETF doesn’t have any work on slicing, on 
> the contrary. Secondly, the need for such indication in the 3GPP has been 
> discussed in the ongoing 3GPP CT4 meeting this week with fully opposing views 
> for such network slice indication. (Network slicing is supported in 3GPP 
> Rel-15 already, and nothing new was defined in the user plane in Rel-15. 
> There was no need for that!)

It looks not accurate view of the latest discussion in 3GPP CT4. CT4 agreed not 
to introduce any NEW identifiers to indicate network slice for 5GC and its 
transport. Existing identifiers can be expected for that purpose in user plane.


Hope it helps our understanding correct.

Best regards,
--satoru




> 2018/12/14 15:14、Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) のメール:
> 
> Folks – Sorry for the delay on this. Given the number of support votes for 
> the company I am affiliated with, I thought it would be best for my co-chair 
> Dapeng reviews this feedback, and in consultation with the AD, makes the 
> decision on this. We will close it soon. 
> 
> Sri
> 
> 
> 
> From: Sri Gundavelli 
> Date: Wednesday, December 5, 2018 at 9:18 AM
> To: "dmm@ietf.org" 
> Subject: Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 
> as DMM WG document
> 
> Thanks for all the feedback. The adoption call is now closed. We will review 
> the feedback and decide on the next steps.
> 
> Sri
> 
> 
> 
> From: dmm  on behalf of Sri Gundavelli 
> 
> Date: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 10:42 AM
> To: "dmm@ietf.org" 
> Subject: Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 
> as DMM WG document
> 
> Gentle reminder.  The below adoption call will close next week, the 4th of 
> December, 2018. Please provide your feedback. 
> 
> 
> Sri
> 
> 
> 
> From: dmm  on behalf of Sri Gundavelli 
> 
> Date: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 at 4:34 PM
> To: "dmm@ietf.org" 
> Subject: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as 
> DMM WG document
> 
> Folks:
> 
> During IETF 102 and 103, the authors of the document, 
> draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis.txt have provided the overview of this 
> document. The chairs felt there is good amount of work that went into the 
> document and the analysis has value. The document quality is very high. There 
> was also generally good feedback and interest for the work from the 
> community. We are therefore considering adopting this document as a DMM WG 
> document, to be moved on Informational Standards track.  
> 
> There were also few concerns/comments on the 1.) Relevance of this document 
> to 3GPP in the immediate time frame 2.) Archival Value of the document 3.) 
> Target Audience  - IETF or 3GPP. 
> On #3, there was also a view that the document should be restructured to make 
> it IETF focussed.  With this background, we would like to ask the WG to 
> provide some feedback on their interest for this work. Please provide 
> substantial comments as why this should be adopted, or why it should not be 
> adopted. If there is interest, and if there are no other concerns from 
> AD/IESG/Others, then we may take up this work at some point. 
> 
> Draft Pointer: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02
> 
> 
> The adoption call will end on 4th of December, 2019.
> 
> 
> Regards
> Dapping & Sri
> ___
> dmm mailing list
> dmm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm

___
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm

Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as DMM WG document

[Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)]

Folks - Sorry for the delay on this. Given the number of support votes for the 
company I am affiliated with, I thought it would be best for my co-chair Dapeng 
reviews this feedback, and in consultation with the AD, makes the decision on 
this. We will close it soon.

Sri



From: Sri Gundavelli mailto:sgund...@cisco.com>>
Date: Wednesday, December 5, 2018 at 9:18 AM
To: "dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>" mailto:dmm@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as 
DMM WG document

Thanks for all the feedback. The adoption call is now closed. We will review 
the feedback and decide on the next steps.

Sri



From: dmm mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of Sri 
Gundavelli mailto:sgund...@cisco.com>>
Date: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 10:42 AM
To: "dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>" mailto:dmm@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as 
DMM WG document

Gentle reminder.  The below adoption call will close next week, the 4th of 
December, 2018. Please provide your feedback.


Sri



From: dmm mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of Sri 
Gundavelli mailto:sgund...@cisco.com>>
Date: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 at 4:34 PM
To: "dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>" mailto:dmm@ietf.org>>
Subject: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as DMM 
WG document

Folks:

During IETF 102 and 103, the authors of the document, 
draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis.txt have provided the overview of this 
document. The chairs felt there is good amount of work that went into the 
document and the analysis has value. The document quality is very high. There 
was also generally good feedback and interest for the work from the community. 
We are therefore considering adopting this document as a DMM WG document, to be 
moved on Informational Standards track.

There were also few concerns/comments on the 1.) Relevance of this document to 
3GPP in the immediate time frame 2.) Archival Value of the document 3.) Target 
Audience  - IETF or 3GPP.
On #3, there was also a view that the document should be restructured to make 
it IETF focussed.  With this background, we would like to ask the WG to provide 
some feedback on their interest for this work. Please provide substantial 
comments as why this should be adopted, or why it should not be adopted. If 
there is interest, and if there are no other concerns from AD/IESG/Others, then 
we may take up this work at some point.

Draft Pointer: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02

The adoption call will end on 4th of December, 2019.

Regards
Dapping & Sri
___
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm

Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as DMM WG document

[Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)]

Thanks for all the feedback. The adoption call is now closed. We will review 
the feedback and decide on the next steps.

Sri



From: dmm mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of Sri 
Gundavelli mailto:sgund...@cisco.com>>
Date: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 10:42 AM
To: "dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>" mailto:dmm@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as 
DMM WG document

Gentle reminder.  The below adoption call will close next week, the 4th of 
December, 2018. Please provide your feedback.


Sri



From: dmm mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of Sri 
Gundavelli mailto:sgund...@cisco.com>>
Date: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 at 4:34 PM
To: "dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>" mailto:dmm@ietf.org>>
Subject: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as DMM 
WG document

Folks:

During IETF 102 and 103, the authors of the document, 
draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis.txt have provided the overview of this 
document. The chairs felt there is good amount of work that went into the 
document and the analysis has value. The document quality is very high. There 
was also generally good feedback and interest for the work from the community. 
We are therefore considering adopting this document as a DMM WG document, to be 
moved on Informational Standards track.

There were also few concerns/comments on the 1.) Relevance of this document to 
3GPP in the immediate time frame 2.) Archival Value of the document 3.) Target 
Audience  - IETF or 3GPP.
On #3, there was also a view that the document should be restructured to make 
it IETF focussed.  With this background, we would like to ask the WG to provide 
some feedback on their interest for this work. Please provide substantial 
comments as why this should be adopted, or why it should not be adopted. If 
there is interest, and if there are no other concerns from AD/IESG/Others, then 
we may take up this work at some point.

Draft Pointer: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02

The adoption call will end on 4th of December, 2019.

Regards
Dapping & Sri
___
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm

Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as DMM WG document

[Flinck, Hannu (Nokia - FI/Espoo)]

Hello Sri and others

I have reservations for the adaption of this document to WG draft.
It is not clear how what is the relevance of this draft to IETF lesser to the 
3GPP. To what IETF or DMM WG documents this work would contribute? For example 
if you look at section 1.2 "Our Way of Analysis Work" of the draft, you find 
that all the referenced and analyzed documents are 3GPP documents. How is this 
meaningful to the IETF?

Please note also the following sentence in the same section of the draft that 
scopes the draft: "Based on the results of above, we identify some aspects 
where there might be gap between the current user plane protocol and the 
architectural requirements on which [TR.29.891-3GPP] does not discuss.  " The 
scope of the draft is CLEARLY 3GPP architecture, not of DMM WG nor any other 
IETF work. The draft goes on stating that it would be part of a reply to 3GPP. 
But didn't we already have this replay? Which reply the document is 
anticipating?  In other words it is not clear how DMM WG plans to contribute to 
the 3GPP work beyond the liaison statement. I think that how this document 
contributes to the IETF and particularly to the DMM WG should be answered in 
the document before even considering any adoption. Currently as it stands the 
document  is targeting to another SDO, not the IETF. 3GPP should have the 
adoption call in my view.

Particularly the discussion around slicing is very speculative. And conclusion 
thereof that "The expected evaluation points from this aspect should be whether 
the candidate protocols can support to indicate a network slice in the UP 
packets." Firstly, IETF doesn't have any work on slicing, on the contrary. 
Secondly, the need for such indication in the 3GPP has been discussed in the 
ongoing 3GPP CT4 meeting this week with fully opposing views for such network 
slice indication. (Network slicing is supported in 3GPP Rel-15 already, and 
nothing new was defined in the user plane in Rel-15. There was no need for 
that!)



Best regards
Hannu


From: dmm  On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 8:43 PM
To: dmm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as 
DMM WG document

Gentle reminder.  The below adoption call will close next week, the 4th of 
December, 2018. Please provide your feedback.


Sri



From: dmm mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of Sri 
Gundavelli mailto:sgund...@cisco.com>>
Date: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 at 4:34 PM
To: "dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>" mailto:dmm@ietf.org>>
Subject: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as DMM 
WG document

Folks:

During IETF 102 and 103, the authors of the document, 
draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis.txt have provided the overview of this 
document. The chairs felt there is good amount of work that went into the 
document and the analysis has value. The document quality is very high. There 
was also generally good feedback and interest for the work from the community. 
We are therefore considering adopting this document as a DMM WG document, to be 
moved on Informational Standards track.

There were also few concerns/comments on the 1.) Relevance of this document to 
3GPP in the immediate time frame 2.) Archival Value of the document 3.) Target 
Audience  - IETF or 3GPP.
On #3, there was also a view that the document should be restructured to make 
it IETF focussed.  With this background, we would like to ask the WG to provide 
some feedback on their interest for this work. Please provide substantial 
comments as why this should be adopted, or why it should not be adopted. If 
there is interest, and if there are no other concerns from AD/IESG/Others, then 
we may take up this work at some point.

Draft Pointer: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02


The adoption call will end on 4th of December, 2019.

Regards
Dapping & Sri
___
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm

Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as DMM WG document

[Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)]

Gentle reminder.  The below adoption call will close next week, the 4th of 
December, 2018. Please provide your feedback.


Sri



From: dmm mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of Sri 
Gundavelli mailto:sgund...@cisco.com>>
Date: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 at 4:34 PM
To: "dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>" mailto:dmm@ietf.org>>
Subject: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as DMM 
WG document

Folks:

During IETF 102 and 103, the authors of the document, 
draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis.txt have provided the overview of this 
document. The chairs felt there is good amount of work that went into the 
document and the analysis has value. The document quality is very high. There 
was also generally good feedback and interest for the work from the community. 
We are therefore considering adopting this document as a DMM WG document, to be 
moved on Informational Standards track.

There were also few concerns/comments on the 1.) Relevance of this document to 
3GPP in the immediate time frame 2.) Archival Value of the document 3.) Target 
Audience  - IETF or 3GPP.
On #3, there was also a view that the document should be restructured to make 
it IETF focussed.  With this background, we would like to ask the WG to provide 
some feedback on their interest for this work. Please provide substantial 
comments as why this should be adopted, or why it should not be adopted. If 
there is interest, and if there are no other concerns from AD/IESG/Others, then 
we may take up this work at some point.

Draft Pointer: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02

The adoption call will end on 4th of December, 2019.

Regards
Dapping & Sri
___
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm

Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as DMM WG document

[Kiran . Makhijani]

Support. The document is certainly very useful.
But I hope to see some restructuring, perhaps as a problem-statement document 
to make it IETF-relevant (or aligned) and sets background reference for future 
work in DMM.

-Kiran

From: dmm  on behalf of "Zafar Ali (zali)" 

Date: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 at 9:20 AM
To: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" 
Cc: "dmm@ietf.org" 
Subject: Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as 
DMM WG document

+1, I find this document very useful for the WG to take and complete.

Thanks

Regards … Zafar


On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 1:34 AM Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) 
mailto:sgund...@cisco.com>> wrote:
Folks:

During IETF 102 and 103, the authors of the document, 
draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis.txt have provided the overview of this 
document. The chairs felt there is good amount of work that went into the 
document and the analysis has value. The document quality is very high. There 
was also generally good feedback and interest for the work from the community. 
We are therefore considering adopting this document as a DMM WG document, to be 
moved on Informational Standards track.

There were also few concerns/comments on the 1.) Relevance of this document to 
3GPP in the immediate time frame 2.) Archival Value of the document 3.) Target 
Audience  - IETF or 3GPP.
On #3, there was also a view that the document should be restructured to make 
it IETF focussed.  With this background, we would like to ask the WG to provide 
some feedback on their interest for this work. Please provide substantial 
comments as why this should be adopted, or why it should not be adopted. If 
there is interest, and if there are no other concerns from AD/IESG/Others, then 
we may take up this work at some point.

Draft Pointer: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02


The adoption call will end on 4th of December, 2019.

Regards
Dapping & Sri
___
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
___
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm

Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as DMM WG document

[Zafar Ali (zali)]

+1, I find this document very useful for the WG to take and complete.

Thanks

Regards … Zafar


On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 1:34 AM Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) 
mailto:sgund...@cisco.com>> wrote:
Folks:

During IETF 102 and 103, the authors of the document, 
draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis.txt have provided the overview of this 
document. The chairs felt there is good amount of work that went into the 
document and the analysis has value. The document quality is very high. There 
was also generally good feedback and interest for the work from the community. 
We are therefore considering adopting this document as a DMM WG document, to be 
moved on Informational Standards track.

There were also few concerns/comments on the 1.) Relevance of this document to 
3GPP in the immediate time frame 2.) Archival Value of the document 3.) Target 
Audience  - IETF or 3GPP.
On #3, there was also a view that the document should be restructured to make 
it IETF focussed.  With this background, we would like to ask the WG to provide 
some feedback on their interest for this work. Please provide substantial 
comments as why this should be adopted, or why it should not be adopted. If 
there is interest, and if there are no other concerns from AD/IESG/Others, then 
we may take up this work at some point.

Draft Pointer: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02


The adoption call will end on 4th of December, 2019.

Regards
Dapping & Sri
___
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
___
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm

Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as DMM WG document

[Alberto Rodriguez-Natal]

I find this draft useful and support its adoption.

Thanks,
Alberto

On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 4:34 PM Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) <
sgund...@cisco.com> wrote:

> Folks:
>
> During IETF 102 and 103, the authors of the document,
> draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis.txt have provided the overview of this
> document. The chairs felt there is good amount of work that went into the
> document and the analysis has value. The document quality is very high.
> There was also generally good feedback and interest for the work from the
> community. We are therefore considering adopting this document as a DMM
> WG document, to be moved on Informational Standards track.
>
> There were also few concerns/comments on the 1.) Relevance of this
> document to 3GPP in the immediate time frame 2.) Archival Value of the
> document 3.) Target Audience  - IETF or 3GPP.
> On #3, there was also a view that the document should be restructured to
> make it IETF focussed.  With this background, we would like to ask the WG
> to provide some feedback on their interest for this work. Please provide
> substantial comments as why this should be adopted, or why it should not be
> adopted. If there is interest, and if there are no other concerns from
> AD/IESG/Others, then we may take up this work at some point.
>
> Draft Pointer: 
> *https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02
> *
>
> The adoption call will end on 4th of December, 2019.
>
> Regards
> Dapping & Sri
> ___
> dmm mailing list
> dmm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>
___
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm

Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as DMM WG document

[Dino Farinacci]

Note that I presented LISP to CT4 in August. They were kind enough to give me a 
slot without a WI being ready. 

They asked me to provide a proposal about how a IETF control-plane 
(specifically LISP) could be used to help manage the AMF, SMF, PCF, AUSF, and 
UDM functions. They were intrigue about using a different kind of control plane 
versus a Restful management plane that many of their “N interface” designs are 
based on. 

Maybe this WG should devote time to solving control plane issues in mobile 
networks. And I can say that the LISP WG would be enthusiastic to work with 
DMM. 

CT4 was not really interested in solving any data plane issues because they 
think many of the IETF proposals are no different, or not different enough from 
GTP. That was my interpretation. 

Cheers,
Dino

> On Nov 21, 2018, at 7:16 AM, Behcet Sarikaya  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 3:53 PM David Allan I  
>> wrote:
>> HI
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> AFAIK 3GPP CT4 is looking for work it can adopt, and has indicated that it 
>> wishes to perform the analysis itself. When they were directed to this 
>> document in the recent IETF DMM liaison, it  resulted in a liaison reply 
>> clearly indicated they would define their own criteria.
>> 
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1590/
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> However in the draft it states in the introduction: “However we believe that 
>> to provide adequate information for 3GPP, we need to clearly understand what 
>> the current user plane protocol is in Release 15, and architectural 
>> requirements for the user plane.” And in the conclusion “Our conclusion here 
>> is that we suggest the UP protocol study work in 3GPP takes into account the 
>> evaluation aspects described in Section 5.”, there is more, but I do not 
>> feel a need to be pedantic about it.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> So the purpose of this draft seems to explicitly be to do work for 3GPP that 
>> they have explicitly said they DO NOT WANT.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> At the same time I do not see anything in the charter that suggests we 
>> should be doing this work either.  It would appear to have little to do with 
>> DMM’s chartered direction.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> As such I am opposed to adoption of the draft.
>> 
>>  
>> 
> 
> +1
> 
> I had raised similar issues before.
> 
> BTW no offense to Shunsuke.
> 
> and no offense to my friend Sri :-)
> 
> Behcet 
>> Cheers
>> 
>> Dave
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> ___
>> dmm mailing list
>> dmm@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
> ___
> dmm mailing list
> dmm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
___
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm

Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as DMM WG document

[Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)]

I support the adoption of this draft as an informational document.
I believe this draft provides very useful information from a broad set of 3GPP 
documents that are not necessarily easy to find. Any future work on new mobile 
related technologies will leverage this. I also believe that IETF is the right 
audience for this draft.

Thanks,
Pablo.

From: dmm  on behalf of "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" 

Date: Wednesday, 14 November 2018 at 01:34
To: "dmm@ietf.org" 
Subject: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as DMM 
WG document

Folks:

During IETF 102 and 103, the authors of the document, 
draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis.txt have provided the overview of this 
document. The chairs felt there is good amount of work that went into the 
document and the analysis has value. The document quality is very high. There 
was also generally good feedback and interest for the work from the community. 
We are therefore considering adopting this document as a DMM WG document, to be 
moved on Informational Standards track.

There were also few concerns/comments on the 1.) Relevance of this document to 
3GPP in the immediate time frame 2.) Archival Value of the document 3.) Target 
Audience  - IETF or 3GPP.
On #3, there was also a view that the document should be restructured to make 
it IETF focussed.  With this background, we would like to ask the WG to provide 
some feedback on their interest for this work. Please provide substantial 
comments as why this should be adopted, or why it should not be adopted. If 
there is interest, and if there are no other concerns from AD/IESG/Others, then 
we may take up this work at some point.

Draft Pointer: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02


The adoption call will end on 4th of December, 2019.

Regards
Dapping & Sri
___
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm

Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as DMM WG document

[Arashmid Akhavain]

I vote for adoption. Valuable information have been gathered in this document.

Arashmid

From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Luca Muscariello
Sent: 21 November 2018 04:13
To: sgund...@cisco.com
Cc: Luca Muscariello ; dmm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as 
DMM WG document

Hi,

+1 for adoption. There is a lot of useful content in this document and adoption 
can only help to make it better.
IETF seems the primary audience to me.

Luca


On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 1:34 AM Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) 
mailto:sgund...@cisco.com>> wrote:
Folks:

During IETF 102 and 103, the authors of the document, 
draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis.txt have provided the overview of this 
document. The chairs felt there is good amount of work that went into the 
document and the analysis has value. The document quality is very high. There 
was also generally good feedback and interest for the work from the community. 
We are therefore considering adopting this document as a DMM WG document, to be 
moved on Informational Standards track.

There were also few concerns/comments on the 1.) Relevance of this document to 
3GPP in the immediate time frame 2.) Archival Value of the document 3.) Target 
Audience  - IETF or 3GPP.
On #3, there was also a view that the document should be restructured to make 
it IETF focussed.  With this background, we would like to ask the WG to provide 
some feedback on their interest for this work. Please provide substantial 
comments as why this should be adopted, or why it should not be adopted. If 
there is interest, and if there are no other concerns from AD/IESG/Others, then 
we may take up this work at some point.

Draft Pointer: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02

The adoption call will end on 4th of December, 2019.

Regards
Dapping & Sri
___
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
___
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm

Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as DMM WG document

[Behcet Sarikaya]

On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 3:53 PM David Allan I 
wrote:

> HI
>
>
>
> AFAIK 3GPP CT4 is looking for work it can adopt, and has indicated that it
> wishes to perform the analysis itself. When they were directed to this
> document in the recent IETF DMM liaison, it  resulted in a liaison reply
> clearly indicated they would define their own criteria.
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1590/
>
>
>
> However in the draft it states in the introduction: “However we believe
> that to provide adequate information for 3GPP, we need to clearly
> understand what the current user plane protocol is in Release 15, and
> architectural requirements for the user plane.” And in the conclusion “Our
> conclusion here is that we suggest the UP protocol study work in 3GPP takes
> into account the evaluation aspects described in Section 5.”, there is
> more, but I do not feel a need to be pedantic about it.
>
>
>
> So the purpose of this draft seems to explicitly be to do work for 3GPP
> that they have explicitly said they DO NOT WANT.
>
>
>
> At the same time I do not see anything in the charter that suggests we
> should be doing this work either.  It would appear to have little to do
> with DMM’s chartered direction.
>
>
>
> As such I am opposed to adoption of the draft.
>
>
>

+1

I had raised similar issues before.

BTW no offense to Shunsuke.

and no offense to my friend Sri :-)

Behcet

> Cheers
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>
> ___
> dmm mailing list
> dmm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>
___
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm

Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as DMM WG document

[Luca Muscariello]

Hi,

+1 for adoption. There is a lot of useful content in this document and
adoption can only help to make it better.
IETF seems the primary audience to me.

Luca


On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 1:34 AM Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) <
sgund...@cisco.com> wrote:

> Folks:
>
> During IETF 102 and 103, the authors of the document,
> draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis.txt have provided the overview of this
> document. The chairs felt there is good amount of work that went into the
> document and the analysis has value. The document quality is very high.
> There was also generally good feedback and interest for the work from the
> community. We are therefore considering adopting this document as a DMM
> WG document, to be moved on Informational Standards track.
>
> There were also few concerns/comments on the 1.) Relevance of this
> document to 3GPP in the immediate time frame 2.) Archival Value of the
> document 3.) Target Audience  - IETF or 3GPP.
> On #3, there was also a view that the document should be restructured to
> make it IETF focussed.  With this background, we would like to ask the WG
> to provide some feedback on their interest for this work. Please provide
> substantial comments as why this should be adopted, or why it should not be
> adopted. If there is interest, and if there are no other concerns from
> AD/IESG/Others, then we may take up this work at some point.
>
> Draft Pointer: 
> *https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02
> *
>
> The adoption call will end on 4th of December, 2019.
>
> Regards
> Dapping & Sri
> ___
> dmm mailing list
> dmm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>
___
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm

Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as DMM WG document

[Shunsuke Homma]

Hi Dave,

Thank you for details of your thought about charter.

Firstly, we've understood that only 3GPP can decide criteria for evaluation
of candidate protocols. The evaluation aspects described in the section 5
are just references from IETF view points, and this draft will never force
3GPP folks to use the aspects for thier evaluation. If the description "Our
conclusion here~" is not appropriate, we can change it.

Regarding the charter, in my understanding, this document would be
contribution for work "Distributed mobility management deployment models
and scenarios". As you know, 3GPP 5G architecture allows to distribute
UPFs, and it means that the 5G architecture potencially supports
distributed mobility management. 3GPP architecture is widly used in the
world, and clarifying the requriements and issues of the 5G architecture as
a reference model would be corresponded to the scope of DMM. It would be
help for further study in DMM WG.

In addition, the charter describes "The working group may decide to extend
the current milestones based on the new information and knowledge gained
during working on other documents listed in the initial milestones.
Possible new documents and milestones must still fit into the overall DMM
charter scope as outlined above.",  and we can extend the milestones if it
is needed.

Therefore, I believe this document is in the scope of DMM, and this work
will help for DMM.

Best regards,

Shunsuke

2018年11月16日(金) 5:03 David Allan I :

> Hi Shunsuke:
>
> First off I think there is a charter problem in that there are no
> milestones that are not 18 months out of date.  That is independent of
> draft-hmm.
>
> If I look at the list of topics that the charter suggests the WG could
> produce draft on I don't see a fit with any of them. The closest being:
> Distributed mobility management deployment models and scenarios:
>  describe the target high-level network architectures and
> deployment models where distributed mobility management
> protocol solutions would apply
>
> However the charter describes a DMM solution as one being:
> "The IETF Distributed Mobility Management (DMM) working group
> (WG) specifies solutions for IP networks so that traffic between
> mobile
> and correspondent nodes can take an optimal route."
>
> I cannot connect the content of draft-hmm with these objectives.  At the
> moment it appears clear that the draft has been written for the purpose of
> advocacy explicitly to 3GPP of user plane protocols.  I suppose it could be
> claimed to describe parts of the 5G architecture and that is useful, but a
> lot would need to be expunged from the draft before that part of it was
> useful to capture for archival or educational purposes.
>
> The draft's primary claim to fame from what I can tell is the conclusion
> that support for SSC mode 3  would benefit from a UP change to permit mp2p
> tunneling. Now I will certainly not claim to be an expert, and was not in
> the room when any of this was discussed in 3GPP or codified (full
> disclaimer, never attended a meeting). But my understanding of SSC mode 3
> and branching is that this is a mechanism to support a network initiated
> change of UPF in a make before break fashion and is likely only a temporary
> situation.  The actual practice being to set up the branch point and new
> UPF, and the UE lets all old prefix correspondent sessions quiesce, while
> initiating all new sessions with the new prefix, at which point
> connectivity to the old UPF can be torn down .   As such I would consider
> suggesting this is a serious problem that requires a complete UP change
> from RAN to DN is a questionable and possibly dangerous conclusion.  I
> would also observe that any sort of solution to mp2p tunneling for the 5GC
> does not appear to be part of DMM's objectives as described in the charter;
> it claims to reduce state for a rare operational procedure, and is not a
> solution to optimal routing of UE traffic.
>
> I hope this helps
> Dave
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Shunsuke Homma 
> Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 1:19 AM
> To: dmm@ietf.org; David Allan I 
> Cc: s.homma0718+i...@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of
> draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as DMM WG document
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> Thank you for reviewing our draft and sending your thought for the
> adoption.
>
> When I reviewed the charter I couldn't find any text to make the draft to
> be out of scope. Could you please elaborate it with the text in the charter?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Shunsuke
>
>
> On 2018/11/15 6:52, David Allan I wrote:
> > HI
> >
> > AFAIK 3GPP CT4 is looking for work it can adopt, and has indica

Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as DMM WG document

[David Allan I]

Assuming it does somehow fit into the charter, I would still like to see 
significant modifications to make the purpose of the document in the context of 
IETF and DMM clear before the document was adopted.

Regards
Dave

From: Shunsuke Homma 
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2018 3:14 AM
To: David Allan I ; dmm@ietf.org; Shunsuke Homma 

Subject: Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as 
DMM WG document

Hi Dave,

Thank you for details of your thought about charter.

Firstly, we've understood that only 3GPP can decide criteria for evaluation of 
candidate protocols. The evaluation aspects described in the section 5 are just 
references from IETF view points, and this draft will never force 3GPP folks to 
use the aspects for thier evaluation. If the description "Our conclusion here~" 
is not appropriate, we can change it.

Regarding the charter, in my understanding, this document would be contribution 
for work "Distributed mobility management deployment models and scenarios". As 
you know, 3GPP 5G architecture allows to distribute UPFs, and it means that the 
5G architecture potencially supports distributed mobility management. 3GPP 
architecture is widly used in the world, and clarifying the requriements and 
issues of the 5G architecture as a reference model would be corresponded to the 
scope of DMM. It would be help for further study in DMM WG.

In addition, the charter describes "The working group may decide to extend the 
current milestones based on the new information and knowledge gained during 
working on other documents listed in the initial milestones. Possible new 
documents and milestones must still fit into the overall DMM charter scope as 
outlined above.",  and we can extend the milestones if it is needed.

Therefore, I believe this document is in the scope of DMM, and this work will 
help for DMM.

Best regards,

Shunsuke

2018年11月16日(金) 5:03 David Allan I 
mailto:david.i.al...@ericsson.com>>:
Hi Shunsuke:

First off I think there is a charter problem in that there are no milestones 
that are not 18 months out of date.  That is independent of draft-hmm.

If I look at the list of topics that the charter suggests the WG could produce 
draft on I don't see a fit with any of them. The closest being:
Distributed mobility management deployment models and scenarios:
 describe the target high-level network architectures and
deployment models where distributed mobility management
protocol solutions would apply

However the charter describes a DMM solution as one being:
"The IETF Distributed Mobility Management (DMM) working group
(WG) specifies solutions for IP networks so that traffic between mobile
and correspondent nodes can take an optimal route."

I cannot connect the content of draft-hmm with these objectives.  At the moment 
it appears clear that the draft has been written for the purpose of advocacy 
explicitly to 3GPP of user plane protocols.  I suppose it could be claimed to 
describe parts of the 5G architecture and that is useful, but a lot would need 
to be expunged from the draft before that part of it was useful to capture for 
archival or educational purposes.

The draft's primary claim to fame from what I can tell is the conclusion that 
support for SSC mode 3  would benefit from a UP change to permit mp2p 
tunneling. Now I will certainly not claim to be an expert, and was not in the 
room when any of this was discussed in 3GPP or codified (full disclaimer, never 
attended a meeting). But my understanding of SSC mode 3 and branching is that 
this is a mechanism to support a network initiated change of UPF in a make 
before break fashion and is likely only a temporary situation.  The actual 
practice being to set up the branch point and new UPF, and the UE lets all old 
prefix correspondent sessions quiesce, while initiating all new sessions with 
the new prefix, at which point connectivity to the old UPF can be torn down .   
As such I would consider suggesting this is a serious problem that requires a 
complete UP change from RAN to DN is a questionable and possibly dangerous 
conclusion.  I would also observe that any sort of solution to mp2p tunneling 
for the 5GC does not appear to be part of DMM's objectives as described in the 
charter; it claims to reduce state for a rare operational procedure, and is not 
a solution to optimal routing of UE traffic.

I hope this helps
Dave


-Original Message-
From: Shunsuke Homma 
mailto:homma.shuns...@lab.ntt.co.jp>>
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 1:19 AM
To: dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>; David Allan I 
mailto:david.i.al...@ericsson.com>>
Cc: s.homma0718+i...@gmail.com<mailto:s.homma0718%2bi...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as 
DMM WG document

Hi Dave,

Thank you for reviewing our draft and sending your thought f

Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as DMM WG document

[John Kaippallimalil]

David,
I do not see anything at all in TS29.892 about GTP being problematic on N9.

Also, even in 4G - PDN connection QoS was indicated to transport networks 
(potentially cross domain) by mapping DSCP  in IP/GTP-U to MPLS label. 

Slicing may need more details between 5G/transport networks (-- still to be 
determined in CT4)
There are slice friendly proposals - like TN aware mobility for 5G 
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-clt-dmm-tn-aware-mobility/ ) and ACTN 
(RFC 8453) that allow dynamic negotiation of capabilities and mappings across 
application/transport domain. 
These can work with many transports (MPLS, SRv6, ..) and are independent of the 
user plane protocol (GTP-U, SRv6, ILA, ..)

Best Regards,
John



-Original Message-
From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of 
d.lake=40surrey.ac...@dmarc.ietf.org
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2018 4:52 AM
To: Sridhar Bhaskaran ; 
homma.shuns...@lab.ntt.co.jp; dmm@ietf.org; david.i.al...@ericsson.com
Cc: s.homma0718+i...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as 
DMM WG document

In TS 29.892:

5.2.1   IP Connectivity for N9 and Network Slicing
The N9 interface requires IP connectivity between UPFs. IP networking issues 
may affect the user plane of 3GPP system. The data path between UPFs may 
consist of various links and IP routing nodes so that multiple paths may be 
available for the N9 interface. The bandwidth, latency and reliability of those 
paths may differ. 
The 5GC supports the concept of network slicing. The Network Instance ID 
supported over N4 enables to provide information to the UPF about the network 
slice of the PDU session (see subclause 5.6.12 of 3GPP TS 23.501, which 
indicates that the Network Instance ID can be selected based on the S-NSSAI of 
the PDU session). The UPFs need to have information on the transport network 
slice to allow the user plane packet of PDU sessions of 5GC network slices to 
be sent via appropriate transport networks.  There is no one to one mapping 
between 5GC slices and transport network slices, i.e. several 5GC slices may 
use the same transport network slice.
NOTE:   How network slicing is supported in transport networks is out of scope 
of 3GPP.
It is proposed to study the following aspects: 
-   whether there is a requirement to pass information about the network 
slice or the required QoS for the data path in the user plane packets.



Implication here is that we require IP interconnectivity between the domains 
and information derived from the label "The UPFs need to have information on 
the transport network slice."   That implies some knowledge or correlation of 
GTP between the two sides of the N9 interface.   So if a UPF has GTP knowledge 
from inside its domain and needs to cross domain, we have to be careful that 
there is separation of the GTP address plane (which is only 32-bit wide).

TS 29.892 is quite "light" on details at the moment.

David

-Original Message-
From: Sridhar Bhaskaran 
Sent: 16 November 2018 08:17
To: Lake, David (PG/R - Elec Electronic Eng) ; 
homma.shuns...@lab.ntt.co.jp; dmm@ietf.org; david.i.al...@ericsson.com
Cc: s.homma0718+i...@gmail.com
Subject: RE: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as 
DMM WG document

Hi David Lake,

Could you please clarify what is your reference for the following statement?

>> The CT4 study for future user-plane makes it clear ***that for cross-domain 
>> connections GTP is problematic on N9 and alternatives could be 
>> considered.

Regards
Sridhar Bhaskaran
 
-Original Message-
From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of 
d.lake=40surrey.ac...@dmarc.ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 3:09 PM
To: homma.shuns...@lab.ntt.co.jp; dmm@ietf.org; david.i.al...@ericsson.com
Cc: s.homma0718+i...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as 
DMM WG document

Dave

I agree with you.  In Rel 15 it is clear that the user plane protocol on both 
N3 and N9 is GTP.

The CT4 study for future user-plane makes it clear that for cross-domain 
connections GTP is problematic on N9 and alternatives could be considered.

The timeframe is Rel 16 and the working document is TR 29.892.   

So far there are TWO candidate protocols in the document:

1) GTP
2) SRv6

However, this is a working document and there is plenty of scope to add other 
candidates in advance of the adoption of the output of CT4 (not sure what date 
that is - my guess would be sometime round the end of 2019?)

So I think IN SCOPE for DMM is suggesting, detailing, explaining new User Plane 
candidate protocols.

OUT OF SCOPE of the DMM is deciding which of those protocols makes it into Rel 
16.

Surely there are more than 2 candidate protocols we could consider for N3 and 
N9!?

David

-Original Message-
From: dmm  On Behalf Of Shunsuke Homma
Sent: 15 November 2

Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as DMM WG document

[d . lake=40surrey . ac . uk]

In TS 29.892:

5.2.1   IP Connectivity for N9 and Network Slicing
The N9 interface requires IP connectivity between UPFs. IP networking issues 
may affect the user plane of 3GPP system. The data path between UPFs may 
consist of various links and IP routing nodes so that multiple paths may be 
available for the N9 interface. The bandwidth, latency and reliability of those 
paths may differ. 
The 5GC supports the concept of network slicing. The Network Instance ID 
supported over N4 enables to provide information to the UPF about the network 
slice of the PDU session (see subclause 5.6.12 of 3GPP TS 23.501, which 
indicates that the Network Instance ID can be selected based on the S-NSSAI of 
the PDU session). The UPFs need to have information on the transport network 
slice to allow the user plane packet of PDU sessions of 5GC network slices to 
be sent via appropriate transport networks.  There is no one to one mapping 
between 5GC slices and transport network slices, i.e. several 5GC slices may 
use the same transport network slice.
NOTE:   How network slicing is supported in transport networks is out of scope 
of 3GPP.
It is proposed to study the following aspects: 
-   whether there is a requirement to pass information about the network 
slice or the required QoS for the data path in the user plane packets.



Implication here is that we require IP interconnectivity between the domains 
and information derived from the label "The UPFs need to have information on 
the transport network slice."   That implies some knowledge or correlation of 
GTP between the two sides of the N9 interface.   So if a UPF has GTP knowledge 
from inside its domain and needs to cross domain, we have to be careful that 
there is separation of the GTP address plane (which is only 32-bit wide).

TS 29.892 is quite "light" on details at the moment.

David

-Original Message-
From: Sridhar Bhaskaran  
Sent: 16 November 2018 08:17
To: Lake, David (PG/R - Elec Electronic Eng) ; 
homma.shuns...@lab.ntt.co.jp; dmm@ietf.org; david.i.al...@ericsson.com
Cc: s.homma0718+i...@gmail.com
Subject: RE: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as 
DMM WG document

Hi David Lake,

Could you please clarify what is your reference for the following statement?

>> The CT4 study for future user-plane makes it clear ***that for cross-domain 
>> connections GTP is problematic on N9 and alternatives could be 
>> considered.

Regards
Sridhar Bhaskaran
 
-Original Message-
From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of 
d.lake=40surrey.ac...@dmarc.ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 3:09 PM
To: homma.shuns...@lab.ntt.co.jp; dmm@ietf.org; david.i.al...@ericsson.com
Cc: s.homma0718+i...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as 
DMM WG document

Dave

I agree with you.  In Rel 15 it is clear that the user plane protocol on both 
N3 and N9 is GTP.

The CT4 study for future user-plane makes it clear that for cross-domain 
connections GTP is problematic on N9 and alternatives could be considered.

The timeframe is Rel 16 and the working document is TR 29.892.   

So far there are TWO candidate protocols in the document:

1) GTP
2) SRv6

However, this is a working document and there is plenty of scope to add other 
candidates in advance of the adoption of the output of CT4 (not sure what date 
that is - my guess would be sometime round the end of 2019?)

So I think IN SCOPE for DMM is suggesting, detailing, explaining new User Plane 
candidate protocols.

OUT OF SCOPE of the DMM is deciding which of those protocols makes it into Rel 
16.

Surely there are more than 2 candidate protocols we could consider for N3 and 
N9!?

David

-Original Message-
From: dmm  On Behalf Of Shunsuke Homma
Sent: 15 November 2018 09:19
To: dmm@ietf.org; david.i.al...@ericsson.com
Cc: s.homma0718+i...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as 
DMM WG document

Hi Dave,

Thank you for reviewing our draft and sending your thought for the adoption...

When I reviewed the charter I couldn't find any text to make the draft to be 
out of scope. Could you please elaborate it with the text in the charter?

Best regards,

Shunsuke


On 2018/11/15 6:52, David Allan I wrote:
> HI
> 
> AFAIK 3GPP CT4 is looking for work it can adopt, and has indicated 
> that it wishes to perform the analysis itself. When they were directed 
> to this document in the recent IETF DMM liaison, it  resulted in a 
> liaison reply clearly indicated they would define their own criteria.
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1590/
> 
> However in the draft it states in the introduction: "However we 
> believe that to provide adequate information for 3GPP, we need to 
> clearly understand what the current user plane protocol is in Release 
> 15, and architectural requirem

Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as DMM WG document

[Jordan Augé]

Hi David,

To follow up on your last question, I could refer to a draft initiated by 
Kalyani which so far has material about candidate protocols and includes SRv6, 
LISP, ILA and hICN, and was part of the DMM answer to the 3GPP CT4 study item.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bogineni-dmm-optimized-mobile-user-plane-01

Regards,
-- Jordan

> Dave
> 
> I agree with you.  In Rel 15 it is clear that the user plane protocol on
> both N3 and N9 is GTP.
> 
> The CT4 study for future user-plane makes it clear that for cross-domain
> connections GTP is problematic on N9 and alternatives could be considered.
> 
> The timeframe is Rel 16 and the working document is TR 29.892.
> 
> So far there are TWO candidate protocols in the document:
> 
> 1) GTP
> 2) SRv6
> 
> However, this is a working document and there is plenty of scope to add
> other candidates in advance of the adoption of the output of CT4 (not sure
> what date that is - my guess would be sometime round the end of 2019?)
> 
> So I think IN SCOPE for DMM is suggesting, detailing, explaining new User
> Plane candidate protocols.
> 
> OUT OF SCOPE of the DMM is deciding which of those protocols makes it into
> Rel 16.
> 
> Surely there are more than 2 candidate protocols we could consider for N3
> and N9!?
> 
> David
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: dmm  On Behalf Of Shunsuke Homma
> Sent: 15 November 2018 09:19
> To: dmm@ietf.org; david.i.al...@ericsson.com
> Cc: s.homma0718+i...@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02
> as DMM WG document
> 
> Hi Dave,
> 
> Thank you for reviewing our draft and sending your thought for the adoption.
> 
> When I reviewed the charter I couldn't find any text to make the draft to be
> out of scope. Could you please elaborate it with the text in the charter?
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Shunsuke
> 
> On 2018/11/15 6:52, David Allan I wrote:
> > HI
> > 
> > AFAIK 3GPP CT4 is looking for work it can adopt, and has indicated
> > that it wishes to perform the analysis itself. When they were directed
> > to this document in the recent IETF DMM liaison, it  resulted in a
> > liaison reply clearly indicated they would define their own criteria.
> > 
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1590/
> > 
> > However in the draft it states in the introduction: "However we
> > believe that to provide adequate information for 3GPP, we need to
> > clearly understand what the current user plane protocol is in Release
> > 15, and architectural requirements for the user plane." And in the
> > conclusion "Our conclusion here is that we suggest the UP protocol
> > study work in 3GPP takes into account the evaluation aspects described
> > in Section 5.", there is more, but I do not feel a need to be pedantic
> > about it.
> > 
> > So the purpose of this draft seems to explicitly be to do work for
> > 3GPP that they have explicitly said they DO NOT WANT.
> > 
> > At the same time I do not see anything in the charter that suggests we
> > should be doing this work either.  It would appear to have little to
> > do with DMM's chartered direction.
> > 
> > As such I am opposed to adoption of the draft.
> > 
> > Cheers
> > 
> > Dave
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ___
> > dmm mailing list
> > dmm@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
> 
> --
> --
> Shunsuke Homma
> 
> TEL: +81 422 59 3486
> FAX: +81 422 60 7460
> 
> NTT Network Service Systems Labs.
> Musashino city, Tokyo, Japan
> --
> 
> ___
> dmm mailing list
> dmm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
> 
> ___
> dmm mailing list
> dmm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm




___
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm

Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as DMM WG document

[Sridhar Bhaskaran]

Hi David Lake,

Could you please clarify what is your reference for the following statement?

>> The CT4 study for future user-plane makes it clear ***that for cross-domain 
>> connections GTP is problematic on N9 and alternatives could be 
>> considered.

Regards
Sridhar Bhaskaran
 
-Original Message-
From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of 
d.lake=40surrey.ac...@dmarc.ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 3:09 PM
To: homma.shuns...@lab.ntt.co.jp; dmm@ietf.org; david.i.al...@ericsson.com
Cc: s.homma0718+i...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as 
DMM WG document

Dave

I agree with you.  In Rel 15 it is clear that the user plane protocol on both 
N3 and N9 is GTP.

The CT4 study for future user-plane makes it clear that for cross-domain 
connections GTP is problematic on N9 and alternatives could be considered.

The timeframe is Rel 16 and the working document is TR 29.892.   

So far there are TWO candidate protocols in the document:

1) GTP
2) SRv6

However, this is a working document and there is plenty of scope to add other 
candidates in advance of the adoption of the output of CT4 (not sure what date 
that is - my guess would be sometime round the end of 2019?)

So I think IN SCOPE for DMM is suggesting, detailing, explaining new User Plane 
candidate protocols.

OUT OF SCOPE of the DMM is deciding which of those protocols makes it into Rel 
16.

Surely there are more than 2 candidate protocols we could consider for N3 and 
N9!?

David

-Original Message-
From: dmm  On Behalf Of Shunsuke Homma
Sent: 15 November 2018 09:19
To: dmm@ietf.org; david.i.al...@ericsson.com
Cc: s.homma0718+i...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as 
DMM WG document

Hi Dave,

Thank you for reviewing our draft and sending your thought for the adoption.

When I reviewed the charter I couldn't find any text to make the draft to be 
out of scope. Could you please elaborate it with the text in the charter?

Best regards,

Shunsuke


On 2018/11/15 6:52, David Allan I wrote:
> HI
> 
> AFAIK 3GPP CT4 is looking for work it can adopt, and has indicated 
> that it wishes to perform the analysis itself. When they were directed 
> to this document in the recent IETF DMM liaison, it  resulted in a 
> liaison reply clearly indicated they would define their own criteria.
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1590/
> 
> However in the draft it states in the introduction: "However we 
> believe that to provide adequate information for 3GPP, we need to 
> clearly understand what the current user plane protocol is in Release 
> 15, and architectural requirements for the user plane." And in the 
> conclusion "Our conclusion here is that we suggest the UP protocol 
> study work in 3GPP takes into account the evaluation aspects described 
> in Section 5.", there is more, but I do not feel a need to be pedantic about 
> it.
> 
> So the purpose of this draft seems to explicitly be to do work for 
> 3GPP that they have explicitly said they DO NOT WANT.
> 
> At the same time I do not see anything in the charter that suggests we 
> should be doing this work either.  It would appear to have little to 
> do with DMM's chartered direction.
> 
> As such I am opposed to adoption of the draft.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> dmm mailing list
> dmm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
> 


--
--
Shunsuke Homma

TEL: +81 422 59 3486
FAX: +81 422 60 7460

NTT Network Service Systems Labs.
Musashino city, Tokyo, Japan
--

___
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm

___
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm

___
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm

Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as DMM WG document

[David Allan I]

Hi Shunsuke:

First off I think there is a charter problem in that there are no milestones 
that are not 18 months out of date.  That is independent of draft-hmm.

If I look at the list of topics that the charter suggests the WG could produce 
draft on I don't see a fit with any of them. The closest being: 
Distributed mobility management deployment models and scenarios:
 describe the target high-level network architectures and
deployment models where distributed mobility management
protocol solutions would apply

However the charter describes a DMM solution as one being:
"The IETF Distributed Mobility Management (DMM) working group
(WG) specifies solutions for IP networks so that traffic between mobile
and correspondent nodes can take an optimal route."

I cannot connect the content of draft-hmm with these objectives.  At the moment 
it appears clear that the draft has been written for the purpose of advocacy 
explicitly to 3GPP of user plane protocols.  I suppose it could be claimed to 
describe parts of the 5G architecture and that is useful, but a lot would need 
to be expunged from the draft before that part of it was useful to capture for 
archival or educational purposes. 

The draft's primary claim to fame from what I can tell is the conclusion that 
support for SSC mode 3  would benefit from a UP change to permit mp2p 
tunneling. Now I will certainly not claim to be an expert, and was not in the 
room when any of this was discussed in 3GPP or codified (full disclaimer, never 
attended a meeting). But my understanding of SSC mode 3 and branching is that 
this is a mechanism to support a network initiated change of UPF in a make 
before break fashion and is likely only a temporary situation.  The actual 
practice being to set up the branch point and new UPF, and the UE lets all old 
prefix correspondent sessions quiesce, while initiating all new sessions with 
the new prefix, at which point connectivity to the old UPF can be torn down .   
As such I would consider suggesting this is a serious problem that requires a 
complete UP change from RAN to DN is a questionable and possibly dangerous 
conclusion.  I would also observe that any sort of solution to mp2p tunneling 
for the 5GC does not appear to be part of DMM's objectives as described in the 
charter; it claims to reduce state for a rare operational procedure, and is not 
a solution to optimal routing of UE traffic.  

I hope this helps
Dave


-Original Message-
From: Shunsuke Homma  
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 1:19 AM
To: dmm@ietf.org; David Allan I 
Cc: s.homma0718+i...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as 
DMM WG document

Hi Dave,

Thank you for reviewing our draft and sending your thought for the adoption.

When I reviewed the charter I couldn't find any text to make the draft to be 
out of scope. Could you please elaborate it with the text in the charter?

Best regards,

Shunsuke


On 2018/11/15 6:52, David Allan I wrote:
> HI
> 
> AFAIK 3GPP CT4 is looking for work it can adopt, and has indicated 
> that it wishes to perform the analysis itself. When they were directed 
> to this document in the recent IETF DMM liaison, it  resulted in a 
> liaison reply clearly indicated they would define their own criteria.
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1590/
> 
> However in the draft it states in the introduction: "However we 
> believe that to provide adequate information for 3GPP, we need to 
> clearly understand what the current user plane protocol is in Release 
> 15, and architectural requirements for the user plane." And in the 
> conclusion "Our conclusion here is that we suggest the UP protocol 
> study work in 3GPP takes into account the evaluation aspects described 
> in Section 5.", there is more, but I do not feel a need to be pedantic about 
> it.
> 
> So the purpose of this draft seems to explicitly be to do work for 
> 3GPP that they have explicitly said they DO NOT WANT.
> 
> At the same time I do not see anything in the charter that suggests we 
> should be doing this work either.  It would appear to have little to 
> do with DMM's chartered direction.
> 
> As such I am opposed to adoption of the draft.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> dmm mailing list
> dmm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
> 


--
--
Shunsuke Homma

TEL: +81 422 59 3486
FAX: +81 422 60 7460

NTT Network Service Systems Labs.
Musashino city, Tokyo, Japan
--

___
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm

Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as DMM WG document

[Kentaro Ebisawa]

Hello,

I see Archival Value in this document for members in IETF community, who 
would be working on mobile related technologies in the future.


This document provides an easy to read overview of current 3GPP 
Architecture and User Plane Protocol in IETF friendly format, and also 
provide pointers to 3GPP documents one should read for further 
information.
This is really helpful, since it's really difficult to find set of 3GPP 
documents one must read to get base knowledge to understand and start  
discussing about mobile architecture and protocols, unless you are 
already familiar with 3GPP organization structure, standardization 
process, in which group requirement/architecture/technical 
specifications are discussed, and where to find and download documents.


This did help me and expect to help others in the future to acquire 
basic knowledge to get better understanding of other drafts like 
draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane which is our working group document.


Thanks,
--
Kentaro Ebisawa 
Principal Researcher | Toyota InfoTechnology Center Co., Ltd.

-- Original Message --
From: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" 
To: "dmm@ietf.org" 
Cc:
date: 2018/11/13 16:34:15
Subject: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 
as DMM WG document


Folks:

During IETF 102 and 103, the authors of the document, 
draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis.txt have provided the overview of this 
document. The chairs felt there is good amount of work that went into 
the document and the analysis has value. The document quality is very 
high. There was also generally good feedback and interest for the work 
from the community. We are therefore considering adopting this document 
as a DMM WG document, to be moved on Informational Standards track.


There were also few concerns/comments on the 1.) Relevance of this 
document to 3GPP in the immediate time frame 2.) Archival Value of the 
document 3.) Target Audience  - IETF or 3GPP.
On #3, there was also a view that the document should be restructured to 
make it IETF focussed.  With this background, we would like to ask the 
WG to provide some feedback on their interest for this work. Please 
provide substantial comments as why this should be adopted, or why it 
should not be adopted. If there is interest, and if there are no other 
concerns from AD/IESG/Others, then we may take up this work at some 
point.


Draft Pointer: 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02


The adoption call will end on 4th of December, 2019.

Regards
Dapping & Sri___
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm

Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as DMM WG document

[d . lake=40surrey . ac . uk]

Dave

I agree with you.  In Rel 15 it is clear that the user plane protocol on both 
N3 and N9 is GTP.

The CT4 study for future user-plane makes it clear that for cross-domain 
connections GTP is problematic on N9 and alternatives could be considered.

The timeframe is Rel 16 and the working document is TR 29.892.   

So far there are TWO candidate protocols in the document:

1) GTP
2) SRv6

However, this is a working document and there is plenty of scope to add other 
candidates in advance of the adoption of the output of CT4 (not sure what date 
that is - my guess would be sometime round the end of 2019?)

So I think IN SCOPE for DMM is suggesting, detailing, explaining new User Plane 
candidate protocols.

OUT OF SCOPE of the DMM is deciding which of those protocols makes it into Rel 
16.

Surely there are more than 2 candidate protocols we could consider for N3 and 
N9!?

David

-Original Message-
From: dmm  On Behalf Of Shunsuke Homma
Sent: 15 November 2018 09:19
To: dmm@ietf.org; david.i.al...@ericsson.com
Cc: s.homma0718+i...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as 
DMM WG document

Hi Dave,

Thank you for reviewing our draft and sending your thought for the adoption.

When I reviewed the charter I couldn't find any text to make the draft to be 
out of scope. Could you please elaborate it with the text in the charter?

Best regards,

Shunsuke


On 2018/11/15 6:52, David Allan I wrote:
> HI
> 
> AFAIK 3GPP CT4 is looking for work it can adopt, and has indicated 
> that it wishes to perform the analysis itself. When they were directed 
> to this document in the recent IETF DMM liaison, it  resulted in a 
> liaison reply clearly indicated they would define their own criteria.
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1590/
> 
> However in the draft it states in the introduction: "However we 
> believe that to provide adequate information for 3GPP, we need to 
> clearly understand what the current user plane protocol is in Release 
> 15, and architectural requirements for the user plane." And in the 
> conclusion "Our conclusion here is that we suggest the UP protocol 
> study work in 3GPP takes into account the evaluation aspects described 
> in Section 5.", there is more, but I do not feel a need to be pedantic about 
> it.
> 
> So the purpose of this draft seems to explicitly be to do work for 
> 3GPP that they have explicitly said they DO NOT WANT.
> 
> At the same time I do not see anything in the charter that suggests we 
> should be doing this work either.  It would appear to have little to 
> do with DMM's chartered direction.
> 
> As such I am opposed to adoption of the draft.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> dmm mailing list
> dmm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
> 


--
--
Shunsuke Homma

TEL: +81 422 59 3486
FAX: +81 422 60 7460

NTT Network Service Systems Labs.
Musashino city, Tokyo, Japan
--

___
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm

___
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm

Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as DMM WG document

[Shunsuke Homma]

Hi Dave,

Thank you for reviewing our draft and sending your thought for the adoption.

When I reviewed the charter I couldn't find any text to make the draft 
to be out of scope. Could you please elaborate it with the text in the 
charter?


Best regards,

Shunsuke


On 2018/11/15 6:52, David Allan I wrote:

HI

AFAIK 3GPP CT4 is looking for work it can adopt, and has indicated that 
it wishes to perform the analysis itself. When they were directed to 
this document in the recent IETF DMM liaison, it  resulted in a liaison 
reply clearly indicated they would define their own criteria.


https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1590/

However in the draft it states in the introduction: “However we believe 
that to provide adequate information for 3GPP, we need to clearly 
understand what the current user plane protocol is in Release 15, and 
architectural requirements for the user plane.” And in the conclusion 
“Our conclusion here is that we suggest the UP protocol study work in 
3GPP takes into account the evaluation aspects described in Section 5.”, 
there is more, but I do not feel a need to be pedantic about it.


So the purpose of this draft seems to explicitly be to do work for 3GPP 
that they have explicitly said they DO NOT WANT.


At the same time I do not see anything in the charter that suggests we 
should be doing this work either.  It would appear to have little to do 
with DMM’s chartered direction.


As such I am opposed to adoption of the draft.

Cheers

Dave



___
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm




--
--
Shunsuke Homma

TEL: +81 422 59 3486
FAX: +81 422 60 7460

NTT Network Service Systems Labs.
Musashino city, Tokyo, Japan
--

___
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm

[DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as DMM WG document

[David Allan I]

HI

AFAIK 3GPP CT4 is looking for work it can adopt, and has indicated that it 
wishes to perform the analysis itself. When they were directed to this document 
in the recent IETF DMM liaison, it  resulted in a liaison reply clearly 
indicated they would define their own criteria.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1590/

However in the draft it states in the introduction: "However we believe that to 
provide adequate information for 3GPP, we need to clearly understand what the 
current user plane protocol is in Release 15, and architectural requirements 
for the user plane." And in the conclusion "Our conclusion here is that we 
suggest the UP protocol study work in 3GPP takes into account the evaluation 
aspects described in Section 5.", there is more, but I do not feel a need to be 
pedantic about it.

So the purpose of this draft seems to explicitly be to do work for 3GPP that 
they have explicitly said they DO NOT WANT.

At the same time I do not see anything in the charter that suggests we should 
be doing this work either.  It would appear to have little to do with DMM's 
chartered direction.

As such I am opposed to adoption of the draft.

Cheers
Dave


___
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm

[DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as DMM WG document

[Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)]

Folks:

During IETF 102 and 103, the authors of the document, 
draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis.txt have provided the overview of this 
document. The chairs felt there is good amount of work that went into the 
document and the analysis has value. The document quality is very high. There 
was also generally good feedback and interest for the work from the community. 
We are therefore considering adopting this document as a DMM WG document, to be 
moved on Informational Standards track.

There were also few concerns/comments on the 1.) Relevance of this document to 
3GPP in the immediate time frame 2.) Archival Value of the document 3.) Target 
Audience  - IETF or 3GPP.
On #3, there was also a view that the document should be restructured to make 
it IETF focussed.  With this background, we would like to ask the WG to provide 
some feedback on their interest for this work. Please provide substantial 
comments as why this should be adopted, or why it should not be adopted. If 
there is interest, and if there are no other concerns from AD/IESG/Others, then 
we may take up this work at some point.

Draft Pointer: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02

The adoption call will end on 4th of December, 2019.

Regards
Dapping & Sri
___
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm