Hi Charlie,
Thanks for your comments. I think your comments make sense, as I agreed on
it in my presentation.
Showing the mapping and relationship between the given components in this
draft and the 5GS. But I will check about depth of it and what documents
will be considered.
The update version will be posted in May.
Thanks again!
Regards,
Seil Jeon
From: Charlie Perkins [mailto:charles.perk...@earthlink.net]
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 8:49 AM
To: Seil Jeon
Cc: dmm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DMM] Comment on draft-ietf-dmm-deployment-models
Hello Seil,
Please excuse my delay for this clarifying comments. I have been immersed
elsewhere.
In order to be as clear as possible, please let me refer to a couple of
diagrams. Slide 5 of your presentation at IETF 101 was entitled "Model-5:
On Demand Control Plane Orchestration Mode".
A URL is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/slides-101-dmm-dmm-deploy
ment-models-and-architectural-considerations-01.
And then we have various representations of 3GPP architectural diagrams for
5G. For instance, one can look at slides 4-6 of K. Bogineni et al.'s
presentation.
A URL for the latter is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/slides-101-dmm-optimized-
mobile-user-plane-solutions-for-5g-00
My suggestion was to try to correlate the two different representations of
advanced mobility management architectures. This would involve making a
correspondence between the [dmm] nomenclature (e.g., H-CPA, A-CPN, etc.) and
the 3GPP nomenclature. Plus it would be very nice to express the Service
Primitives in terms of 3GPP 5G reference points - for at least a few of
them. Otherwise there is a reasonable chance that people from 3GPP and
people from IETF may not see each others' points of view.
As I mentioned in an earlier email, I was somewhat surprised that routing
between access networks using heterogeneous physical media was considered to
be a problem, so the mismatch of viewpoints between the SDOs really does
seem to be a problem. I hope we can avoid it this next time around! Maybe
the FPC design for policy will be helpful. I could imagine writing up a new
section for inclusion in draft-bogineni-dmm-optimized-mobile-user-plane, but
as mentioned elsewhere it is not clear just what are the criteria for
selection. Or (quite likely) I just missed it, but I'll try find it in the
rush of relevant emails after the last IETF.
Regards,
Charlie P.
On 3/27/2018 1:52 AM, Seil Jeon wrote:
Hi Charlie,
Thanks for your comments on our update of the I-D.
You commented and suggested that 5G functions in TS 23.501 need to be mapped
with the CPA/CPN, DPA/DPN introduced in our I-D.
I know you have additional suggestions. Will you specifically mention,
please?
Regards,
Seil Jeon
___
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
