Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User Plane Protocol in 5GC"

[Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)]

Thank you all. We will keep the current text. This discussion is now
closed. 


Sri






On 7/19/18, 6:59 AM, "Giovanna Carofiglio (gcarofig)"
 wrote:

>+1. 
>
>Regards,
>Giovanna
>
>From: dmm  on behalf of Jordan Augé
>
>Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 3:56 PM
>To: dmm@ietf.org
>Cc: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
>Subject: Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on
>User Plane Protocol in 5GC"
>
>I am in support of it too.
>
>Cheers,
>-- Jordan
>
>> I agree with the current LS
>>
>> Arashmid
>>
>> From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli
>> (sgundave) Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 3:49 PM
>> To: dmm@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on
>>User
>> Plane Protocol in 5GC"
>>
>> All:
>>
>> Thank you for the discussion today in the DMM meeting on the Liaison
>> response to 3GPP CT4 group.  There was one comment at the microphone
>>that
>> we should not reference individual I-D's (non working documents) in the
>> response. But, as we discussed and per the below summary, we have
>>explained
>> the criteria for inclusion / exclusion of I-D's.  If you still object to
>> it, please let us know. We are extending the deadline for comments till
>> Friday, 20th of July.
>>
>> Dapeng & Sri
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User
>>Plane
>> Protocol in 5GC"
>>
>> "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)"
>>mailto:sgund...@cisco.com>>
>> Mon, 09 July 2018 17:35 UTCShow
>> header<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmm/>
>>
>> Ok!  Thank you Kalyani and Arashmid.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Change-1: Add to the last sentence.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Also please provide any evaluation criteria that could help us in
>> progressing our work to support 5G."
>>
>>
>>
>> Change-2: Add to the second sentence, of second paragraph
>>
>>
>>
>> + " and building proof of concept demos."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Now, I need to pull this back for edits. Let me do that.  I hope this
>>makes
>> a difference in CT4 discussions.
>>
>>
>>
>> All - Let us know if you have any issue with these additions, or to the
>> original proposed text.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Sri
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/9/18, 9:41 AM, "Bogineni, Kalyani"
>> 
>>mailto:Kalyani.Bogineni@VerizonWire
>>le
>> 
>>ss.com<mailto:kalyani.bogin...@verizonwireless.com%3cmailto:Kalyani.Bogin
>>eni
>> @VerizonWireless.com>>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Sri:
>>
>>
>>
>> Here is one edit in the last sentence to allow IETF to take feedback
>>from
>> 3GPP:
>>
>>
>>
>> "Please let us know if you need any additional information. Also please
>> provide any evaluation criteria that
>>
>> could help us in progressing our work to support 5G."
>>
>>
>>
>> Kalyani
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>>
>> From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli
>> (sgundave)
>>
>> Sent: Monday, July 9, 2018 11:51 AM
>>
>> To: Arashmid Akhavain
>> 
>>mailto:arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com>ar
>> ashmid.akhav...@huawei.com%3cmailto:arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com>>>;
>> 
>>dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org%3cmailto:d...@ietf.or
>>g>
>> >
>>
>> Subject: [E] Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study
>>Item on
>> User Plane Protocol in 5GC"
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Arashmid/Kalyani,
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you both for your feedback.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, we thought its better to keep the focus on problem statement and
>> requirement analysis. We don't want to prematurely high-light any
>>solution
>> documents to SDO. Which did not go through proper review process, as it
>> will only result in confusing them.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Having said that however, I think a general statement about proof of
>>
>> concepts can help the cause.
>>
>&

Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User Plane Protocol in 5GC"

[Giovanna Carofiglio (gcarofig)]

+1. 

Regards,
Giovanna

From: dmm  on behalf of Jordan Augé 

Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 3:56 PM
To: dmm@ietf.org
Cc: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
Subject: Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User 
Plane Protocol in 5GC"

I am in support of it too.

Cheers,
-- Jordan

> I agree with the current LS
>
> Arashmid
>
> From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli
> (sgundave) Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 3:49 PM
> To: dmm@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User
> Plane Protocol in 5GC"
>
> All:
>
> Thank you for the discussion today in the DMM meeting on the Liaison
> response to 3GPP CT4 group.  There was one comment at the microphone that
> we should not reference individual I-D's (non working documents) in the
> response. But, as we discussed and per the below summary, we have explained
> the criteria for inclusion / exclusion of I-D's.  If you still object to
> it, please let us know. We are extending the deadline for comments till
> Friday, 20th of July.
>
> Dapeng & Sri
>
>
>
>
> Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User Plane
> Protocol in 5GC"
>
> "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" mailto:sgund...@cisco.com>>
> Mon, 09 July 2018 17:35 UTCShow
> header<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmm/>
>
> Ok!  Thank you Kalyani and Arashmid.
>
>
>
>
>
> Change-1: Add to the last sentence.
>
>
>
> "Also please provide any evaluation criteria that could help us in
> progressing our work to support 5G."
>
>
>
> Change-2: Add to the second sentence, of second paragraph
>
>
>
> + " and building proof of concept demos."
>
>
>
>
>
> Now, I need to pull this back for edits. Let me do that.  I hope this makes
> a difference in CT4 discussions.
>
>
>
> All - Let us know if you have any issue with these additions, or to the
> original proposed text.
>
>
>
>
>
> Sri
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 7/9/18, 9:41 AM, "Bogineni, Kalyani"
> mailto:Kalyani.Bogineni@VerizonWirele
> ss.com<mailto:kalyani.bogin...@verizonwireless.com%3cmailto:Kalyani.Bogineni
> @VerizonWireless.com>>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Sri:
>
>
>
> Here is one edit in the last sentence to allow IETF to take feedback from
> 3GPP:
>
>
>
> "Please let us know if you need any additional information. Also please
> provide any evaluation criteria that
>
> could help us in progressing our work to support 5G."
>
>
>
> Kalyani
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-
>
> From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli
> (sgundave)
>
> Sent: Monday, July 9, 2018 11:51 AM
>
> To: Arashmid Akhavain
> mailto:arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com<mailto:ar
> ashmid.akhav...@huawei.com%3cmailto:arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com>>>;
> dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org%3cmailto:dmm@ietf.org>
> >
>
> Subject: [E] Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on
> User Plane Protocol in 5GC"
>
>
>
> Hi Arashmid/Kalyani,
>
>
>
> Thank you both for your feedback.
>
>
>
> Yes, we thought its better to keep the focus on problem statement and
> requirement analysis. We don't want to prematurely high-light any solution
> documents to SDO. Which did not go through proper review process, as it
> will only result in confusing them.
>
>
>
>
>
> Having said that however, I think a general statement about proof of
>
> concepts can help the cause.
>
>
>
> The current text provides an high-level update and status on where the WG is
> going, and a also a pointer to all documents under review. I am personally
> not keen on making additional edits, unless you guys think the change is
> absolutely needed and will make a difference in CT4 discussion.
>
> So, if you are keen on seeing any such changes, please propose the exact
> text. But, if you have no objections to the current response, we can let
> this go. In future liaisons we can have detailed technical exchanges.
>
>
>
>
>
> Sri
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 7/9/18, 7:23 AM, "Arashmid Akhavain"
> mailto:arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com<mailto:ar
> ashmid.akhav...@huawei.com%3cmailto:arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com>>>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Sri,
>
>
>
> Thank you for your clarifying email. The POC draft talks about the SRv6
>
> demos and I

Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User Plane Protocol in 5GC"

[Jordan Augé]

I am in support of it too.

Cheers,
-- Jordan

> I agree with the current LS
> 
> Arashmid
> 
> From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli
> (sgundave) Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 3:49 PM
> To: dmm@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User
> Plane Protocol in 5GC"
> 
> All:
> 
> Thank you for the discussion today in the DMM meeting on the Liaison
> response to 3GPP CT4 group.  There was one comment at the microphone that
> we should not reference individual I-D's (non working documents) in the
> response. But, as we discussed and per the below summary, we have explained
> the criteria for inclusion / exclusion of I-D's.  If you still object to
> it, please let us know. We are extending the deadline for comments till
> Friday, 20th of July.
> 
> Dapeng & Sri
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User Plane
> Protocol in 5GC"
> 
> "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" mailto:sgund...@cisco.com>>
> Mon, 09 July 2018 17:35 UTCShow
> header<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmm/>
> 
> Ok!  Thank you Kalyani and Arashmid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Change-1: Add to the last sentence.
> 
> 
> 
> "Also please provide any evaluation criteria that could help us in
> progressing our work to support 5G."
> 
> 
> 
> Change-2: Add to the second sentence, of second paragraph
> 
> 
> 
> + " and building proof of concept demos."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, I need to pull this back for edits. Let me do that.  I hope this makes
> a difference in CT4 discussions.
> 
> 
> 
> All - Let us know if you have any issue with these additions, or to the
> original proposed text.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sri
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 7/9/18, 9:41 AM, "Bogineni, Kalyani"
> mailto:Kalyani.Bogineni@VerizonWirele
> ss.com<mailto:kalyani.bogin...@verizonwireless.com%3cmailto:Kalyani.Bogineni
> @VerizonWireless.com>>> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Sri:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is one edit in the last sentence to allow IETF to take feedback from
> 3GPP:
> 
> 
> 
> "Please let us know if you need any additional information. Also please
> provide any evaluation criteria that
> 
> could help us in progressing our work to support 5G."
> 
> 
> 
> Kalyani
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-
> 
> From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli
> (sgundave)
> 
> Sent: Monday, July 9, 2018 11:51 AM
> 
> To: Arashmid Akhavain
> mailto:arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com<mailto:ar
> ashmid.akhav...@huawei.com%3cmailto:arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com>>>;
> dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org%3cmailto:dmm@ietf.org>
> >
> 
> Subject: [E] Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on
> User Plane Protocol in 5GC"
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Arashmid/Kalyani,
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you both for your feedback.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we thought its better to keep the focus on problem statement and
> requirement analysis. We don't want to prematurely high-light any solution
> documents to SDO. Which did not go through proper review process, as it
> will only result in confusing them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having said that however, I think a general statement about proof of
> 
> concepts can help the cause.
> 
> 
> 
> The current text provides an high-level update and status on where the WG is
> going, and a also a pointer to all documents under review. I am personally
> not keen on making additional edits, unless you guys think the change is
> absolutely needed and will make a difference in CT4 discussion.
> 
> So, if you are keen on seeing any such changes, please propose the exact
> text. But, if you have no objections to the current response, we can let
> this go. In future liaisons we can have detailed technical exchanges.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sri
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 7/9/18, 7:23 AM, "Arashmid Akhavain"
> mailto:arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com<mailto:ar
> ashmid.akhav...@huawei.com%3cmailto:arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com>>>
> 
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Sri,
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for your clarifying email. The POC draft talks about the SRv6
> 
> demos and I can see how it can be seen as a document advocating a
> 
> particular solution strategy.
> 
> So, I agree that we should stay away from specific POCs and drafts in
&

Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User Plane Protocol in 5GC"

[Luca Muscariello]

+1

On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 9:53 AM Arashmid Akhavain <
arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com> wrote:

> I agree with the current LS
>
>
>
> Arashmid
>
>
>
> *From:* dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Sri Gundavelli
> (sgundave)
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 17, 2018 3:49 PM
> *To:* dmm@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on
> User Plane Protocol in 5GC"
>
>
>
> All:
>
>
>
> Thank you for the discussion today in the DMM meeting on the Liaison
> response to 3GPP CT4 group.  There was one comment at the microphone that
> we should not reference individual I-D’s (non working documents) in the
> response. But, as we discussed and per the below summary, we have explained
> the criteria for inclusion / exclusion of I-D’s.  If you still object to
> it, please let us know. We are extending the deadline for comments till
> Friday, 20th of July.
>
>
>
> Dapeng & Sri
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User Plane
> Protocol in 5GC"
>
> "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)"  Mon, 09 July 2018 17:35
> UTCShow header <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmm/>
>
> Ok!  Thank you Kalyani and Arashmid.
>
>
>
>
>
> Change-1: Add to the last sentence.
>
>
>
> "Also please provide any evaluation criteria that could help us in 
> progressing our work to support 5G."
>
>
>
> Change-2: Add to the second sentence, of second paragraph
>
>
>
> + “ and building proof of concept demos."
>
>
>
>
>
> Now, I need to pull this back for edits. Let me do that.  I hope this makes a 
> difference in CT4 discussions.
>
>
>
> All - Let us know if you have any issue with these additions, or to the 
> original proposed text.
>
>
>
>
>
> Sri
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 7/9/18, 9:41 AM, "Bogineni, Kalyani" 
> mailto:kalyani.bogin...@verizonwireless.com>>
>  wrote:
>
>
>
> Sri:
>
>
>
> Here is one edit in the last sentence to allow IETF to take feedback from 
> 3GPP:
>
>
>
> "Please let us know if you need any additional information. Also please 
> provide any evaluation criteria that
>
> could help us in progressing our work to support 5G."
>
>
>
> Kalyani
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
>
> From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org ] On Behalf Of 
> Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
>
> Sent: Monday, July 9, 2018 11:51 AM
>
> To: Arashmid Akhavain 
> mailto:arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com>>; 
> dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>
>
> Subject: [E] Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on 
> User Plane Protocol in 5GC"
>
>
>
> Hi Arashmid/Kalyani,
>
>
>
> Thank you both for your feedback.
>
>
>
> Yes, we thought its better to keep the focus on problem statement and 
> requirement analysis. We don’t want to prematurely high-light any solution 
> documents to SDO. Which did not go through proper review process, as it will 
> only result in confusing them.
>
>
>
>
>
> Having said that however, I think a general statement about proof of
>
> concepts can help the cause.
>
>
>
> The current text provides an high-level update and status on where the WG is 
> going, and a also a pointer to all documents under review. I am personally 
> not keen on making additional edits, unless you guys think the change is 
> absolutely needed and will make a difference in CT4 discussion.
>
> So, if you are keen on seeing any such changes, please propose the exact 
> text. But, if you have no objections to the current response, we can let this 
> go. In future liaisons we can have detailed technical exchanges.
>
>
>
>
>
> Sri
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 7/9/18, 7:23 AM, "Arashmid Akhavain" 
> mailto:arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com>>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Sri,
>
>
>
> Thank you for your clarifying email. The POC draft talks about the SRv6
>
> demos and I can see how it can be seen as a document advocating a
>
> particular solution strategy.
>
> So, I agree that we should stay away from specific POCs and drafts in
>
> the LS. Having said that however, I think a general statement about
>
> proof of concepts can help the cause.
>
>
>
> At this point I think it is more important to discuss the GAPs in
>
> existing system rather than focusing on different solutions. That's why
>
> I really like what
>
> d

Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User Plane Protocol in 5GC"

[Arashmid Akhavain]

I agree with the current LS

Arashmid

From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 3:49 PM
To: dmm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User 
Plane Protocol in 5GC"

All:

Thank you for the discussion today in the DMM meeting on the Liaison response 
to 3GPP CT4 group.  There was one comment at the microphone that we should not 
reference individual I-D's (non working documents) in the response. But, as we 
discussed and per the below summary, we have explained the criteria for 
inclusion / exclusion of I-D's.  If you still object to it, please let us know. 
We are extending the deadline for comments till Friday, 20th of July.

Dapeng & Sri




Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User Plane 
Protocol in 5GC"

"Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" mailto:sgund...@cisco.com>> 
Mon, 09 July 2018 17:35 UTCShow 
header<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmm/>

Ok!  Thank you Kalyani and Arashmid.





Change-1: Add to the last sentence.



"Also please provide any evaluation criteria that could help us in progressing 
our work to support 5G."



Change-2: Add to the second sentence, of second paragraph



+ " and building proof of concept demos."





Now, I need to pull this back for edits. Let me do that.  I hope this makes a 
difference in CT4 discussions.



All - Let us know if you have any issue with these additions, or to the 
original proposed text.





Sri

















On 7/9/18, 9:41 AM, "Bogineni, Kalyani" 
mailto:kalyani.bogin...@verizonwireless.com<mailto:kalyani.bogin...@verizonwireless.com%3cmailto:kalyani.bogin...@verizonwireless.com>>>
 wrote:



Sri:



Here is one edit in the last sentence to allow IETF to take feedback from 3GPP:



"Please let us know if you need any additional information. Also please provide 
any evaluation criteria that

could help us in progressing our work to support 5G."



Kalyani



-Original Message-

From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)

Sent: Monday, July 9, 2018 11:51 AM

To: Arashmid Akhavain 
mailto:arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com<mailto:arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com%3cmailto:arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com>>>;
 dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org%3cmailto:dmm@ietf.org>>

Subject: [E] Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on 
User Plane Protocol in 5GC"



Hi Arashmid/Kalyani,



Thank you both for your feedback.



Yes, we thought its better to keep the focus on problem statement and 
requirement analysis. We don't want to prematurely high-light any solution 
documents to SDO. Which did not go through proper review process, as it will 
only result in confusing them.





Having said that however, I think a general statement about proof of

concepts can help the cause.



The current text provides an high-level update and status on where the WG is 
going, and a also a pointer to all documents under review. I am personally not 
keen on making additional edits, unless you guys think the change is absolutely 
needed and will make a difference in CT4 discussion.

So, if you are keen on seeing any such changes, please propose the exact text. 
But, if you have no objections to the current response, we can let this go. In 
future liaisons we can have detailed technical exchanges.





Sri







On 7/9/18, 7:23 AM, "Arashmid Akhavain" 
mailto:arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com<mailto:arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com%3cmailto:arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com>>>

wrote:



Hi Sri,



Thank you for your clarifying email. The POC draft talks about the SRv6

demos and I can see how it can be seen as a document advocating a

particular solution strategy.

So, I agree that we should stay away from specific POCs and drafts in

the LS. Having said that however, I think a general statement about

proof of concepts can help the cause.



At this point I think it is more important to discuss the GAPs in

existing system rather than focusing on different solutions. That's why

I really like what

draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-00 is trying to do.



Cheers,

Arashmid



-Original Message-

From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) [mailto:sgund...@cisco.com]

Sent: 08 July 2018 19:29

To: Arashmid Akhavain 
mailto:arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com<mailto:arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com%3cmailto:arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com>>>;
 dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org%3cmailto:dmm@ietf.org>>

Subject: Re: New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on

User Plane Protocol in 5GC"

Hi Arashmid,

We were trying to avoid this debate on inclusion/exclusions of

individual I-  D's, but looks like we are just doing that. That is

fine. Lets review the  situation.

The approach on what d

Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User Plane Protocol in 5GC"

[Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)]

All:

Thank you for the discussion today in the DMM meeting on the Liaison response 
to 3GPP CT4 group.  There was one comment at the microphone that we should not 
reference individual I-D's (non working documents) in the response. But, as we 
discussed and per the below summary, we have explained the criteria for 
inclusion / exclusion of I-D's.  If you still object to it, please let us know. 
We are extending the deadline for comments till Friday, 20th of July.

Dapeng & Sri




Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User Plane 
Protocol in 5GC"

"Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)"  Mon, 09 July 2018 17:35 
UTCShow header<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmm/#>

Ok!  Thank you Kalyani and Arashmid.


Change-1: Add to the last sentence.

"Also please provide any evaluation criteria that could help us in progressing 
our work to support 5G."

Change-2: Add to the second sentence, of second paragraph

+ " and building proof of concept demos."


Now, I need to pull this back for edits. Let me do that.  I hope this makes a 
difference in CT4 discussions.

All - Let us know if you have any issue with these additions, or to the 
original proposed text.


Sri








On 7/9/18, 9:41 AM, "Bogineni, Kalyani" 
mailto:kalyani.bogin...@verizonwireless.com>>
 wrote:

Sri:

Here is one edit in the last sentence to allow IETF to take feedback from 3GPP:

"Please let us know if you need any additional information. Also please provide 
any evaluation criteria that
could help us in progressing our work to support 5G."

Kalyani

-Original Message-
From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
Sent: Monday, July 9, 2018 11:51 AM
To: Arashmid Akhavain 
mailto:arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com>>; 
dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>
Subject: [E] Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on 
User Plane Protocol in 5GC"

Hi Arashmid/Kalyani,

Thank you both for your feedback.

Yes, we thought its better to keep the focus on problem statement and 
requirement analysis. We don't want to prematurely high-light any solution 
documents to SDO. Which did not go through proper review process, as it will 
only result in confusing them.


Having said that however, I think a general statement about proof of
concepts can help the cause.

The current text provides an high-level update and status on where the WG is 
going, and a also a pointer to all documents under review. I am personally not 
keen on making additional edits, unless you guys think the change is absolutely 
needed and will make a difference in CT4 discussion.
So, if you are keen on seeing any such changes, please propose the exact text. 
But, if you have no objections to the current response, we can let this go. In 
future liaisons we can have detailed technical exchanges.


Sri



On 7/9/18, 7:23 AM, "Arashmid Akhavain" 
mailto:arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com>>
wrote:

Hi Sri,

Thank you for your clarifying email. The POC draft talks about the SRv6
demos and I can see how it can be seen as a document advocating a
particular solution strategy.
So, I agree that we should stay away from specific POCs and drafts in
the LS. Having said that however, I think a general statement about
proof of concepts can help the cause.

At this point I think it is more important to discuss the GAPs in
existing system rather than focusing on different solutions. That's why
I really like what
draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-00 is trying to do.

Cheers,
Arashmid

-Original Message-
From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) [mailto:sgund...@cisco.com]
Sent: 08 July 2018 19:29
To: Arashmid Akhavain 
mailto:arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com>>; 
dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on
User Plane Protocol in 5GC"
Hi Arashmid,
We were trying to avoid this debate on inclusion/exclusions of
individual I-  D's, but looks like we are just doing that. That is
fine. Lets review the  situation.
The approach on what documents to be explicitly listed is based on
the following principles.
#1 Provide references to DMM WG documents that have any relation to
the  study item in 5GC.
#2 Include references to individual I-D's that have done broader
requirement/solution analysis/comparative study on the topic of mobile
user  plane optimization; documents that are not advocating a specific
solution.
We also wanted to apply the constraint of documents that have had
substantial discussions in the working group. In other words,
documents that  were reviewed by the WG and received significantly
high number of  comments.
For #1: we have included draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-02.txt, as
its a  WG document on track for standardization.
For #2: we have included draft-bogineni as there were many
discussions/presentations/conference calls on that draft. We have a

Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User Plane Protocol in 5GC"

[Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)]

Ok!  Thank you Kalyani and Arashmid.


Change-1: Add to the last sentence.

"Also please provide any evaluation criteria that could help us in progressing 
our work to support 5G."

Change-2: Add to the second sentence, of second paragraph

+ “ and building proof of concept demos."


Now, I need to pull this back for edits. Let me do that.  I hope this makes a 
difference in CT4 discussions.

All - Let us know if you have any issue with these additions, or to the 
original proposed text.


Sri








On 7/9/18, 9:41 AM, "Bogineni, Kalyani" 
mailto:kalyani.bogin...@verizonwireless.com>>
 wrote:

Sri:

Here is one edit in the last sentence to allow IETF to take feedback from 3GPP:

"Please let us know if you need any additional information. Also please provide 
any evaluation criteria that
could help us in progressing our work to support 5G."

Kalyani

-Original Message-
From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
Sent: Monday, July 9, 2018 11:51 AM
To: Arashmid Akhavain 
mailto:arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com>>; 
dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>
Subject: [E] Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on 
User Plane Protocol in 5GC"

Hi Arashmid/Kalyani,

Thank you both for your feedback.

Yes, we thought its better to keep the focus on problem statement and 
requirement analysis. We don’t want to prematurely high-light any solution 
documents to SDO. Which did not go through proper review process, as it will 
only result in confusing them.


Having said that however, I think a general statement about proof of
concepts can help the cause.

The current text provides an high-level update and status on where the WG is 
going, and a also a pointer to all documents under review. I am personally not 
keen on making additional edits, unless you guys think the change is absolutely 
needed and will make a difference in CT4 discussion.
So, if you are keen on seeing any such changes, please propose the exact text. 
But, if you have no objections to the current response, we can let this go. In 
future liaisons we can have detailed technical exchanges.


Sri



On 7/9/18, 7:23 AM, "Arashmid Akhavain" 
mailto:arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com>>
wrote:

Hi Sri,

Thank you for your clarifying email. The POC draft talks about the SRv6
demos and I can see how it can be seen as a document advocating a
particular solution strategy.
So, I agree that we should stay away from specific POCs and drafts in
the LS. Having said that however, I think a general statement about
proof of concepts can help the cause.

At this point I think it is more important to discuss the GAPs in
existing system rather than focusing on different solutions. That's why
I really like what
draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-00 is trying to do.

Cheers,
Arashmid

-Original Message-
From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) [mailto:sgund...@cisco.com]
Sent: 08 July 2018 19:29
To: Arashmid Akhavain 
mailto:arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com>>; 
dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on
User Plane Protocol in 5GC"
Hi Arashmid,
We were trying to avoid this debate on inclusion/exclusions of
individual I-  D’s, but looks like we are just doing that. That is
fine. Lets review the  situation.
The approach on what documents to be explicitly listed is based on
the following principles.
#1 Provide references to DMM WG documents that have any relation to
the  study item in 5GC.
#2 Include references to individual I-D’s that have done broader
requirement/solution analysis/comparative study on the topic of mobile
user  plane optimization; documents that are not advocating a specific
solution.
We also wanted to apply the constraint of documents that have had
substantial discussions in the working group. In other words,
documents that  were reviewed by the WG and received significantly
high number of  comments.
For #1: we have included draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-02.txt, as
its a  WG document on track for standardization.
For #2: we have included draft-bogineni as there were many
discussions/presentations/conference calls on that draft. We have also
included draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-00, but however this draft
was  published recently and had near zero discussions in the WG. But
given the  quality of the document and noting that its about
requirement analysis and  as its not advocating a specific solution,
we chose to keep this document in  the list.
We have not included any other I-D’s which have not had enough
discussions  and which are solution specific documents. Not that we
have not established  the draft applicability to the 3GPP study item.
These include:
draft-auge-dmm-hicn-mobility-00,
draft-auge-dmm-hicn-mobility-deployment-options-00,
draft-camarillo-dmm-srv6-mobile-pocs-00,
draft-gundavelli-dmm-mfa-00
draft-homma-dmm-5gs-id-loc-coexistence-01,
No

Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User Plane Protocol in 5GC"

[Arashmid Akhavain]

y-deployment-options-00,
> >> draft-camarillo-dmm-srv6-mobile-pocs-00,
> >> draft-gundavelli-dmm-mfa-00
> >> draft-homma-dmm-5gs-id-loc-coexistence-01,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Now, if this sounds unreasonable or unfair, we have two options.
> >>
> >> #1 Remove references to all individual drafts and only include WG
> >> documents
> >> #2: Include every single I-D (WG and non WG) documents.
> >>
> >>
> >> All - Please comment.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Sri
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 7/8/18, 2:14 PM, "Arashmid Akhavain"
> >> 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Hi Sri,
> >> >Thank you for the reply. Pablo's draft is rather different as it
> >> >describes the two POCs addressing the mobile core data plane.
> >> >Referencing the POCs in the LS can help put things into perspective
> >> >and sort of backs up all the analysis work that everyone have been
> >> >involved in for the last while.
> >> >
> >> >I agree, we do want to keep it simple, but the POCs can certainly
> >> >add
> >>to
> >> >the strength of the LS.
> >> >
> >> >Regards,
> >> >Arashmid
> >> >
> >> >-Original Message-
> >> >From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) [mailto:sgund...@cisco.com]
> >> >Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2018 2:25 AM
> >> >To: Arashmid Akhavain ;
> dmm@ietf.org
> >> >Subject: Re: New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on
> >> >User Plane Protocol in 5GC"
> >> >
> >> >Hi Arashmid,
> >> >
> >> >Thanks for the feedback.
> >> >
> >> >I have added a link to the DMM WG pages and it has links to all the
> >> >DMM documents. I think that should be OK, we don’t have to
> >> >explicitly list out every single I-D at this stage. As we move
> >> >forward and based on WG discussions/progress, we can provide more
> >> >detailed feedback on each document. I suggest we keep this simple for
> now.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> So, what happens next? We wait for their reply?
> >> >
> >> >This is just a response to the LS; more an information exchange on
> >> >the status/progress.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Regards
> >> >Sri
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >On 7/6/18, 1:56 PM, "Arashmid Akhavain"
> >> 
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>Hi Sri,
> >> >>
> >> >>We might also want to add draft-camarillo-dmm-srv6-mobile-pocs-00
> >> >>under "Related Documents".
> >> >>
> >> >>Also, we might want to say something like:
> >> >>"Although we will NOT pick a particular approach, we will be ready
> >> >>to provide further assistance to 3GPP regarding the technical
> >> >>details of different candidates."
> >> >>
> >> >>So, what happens next? We wait for their reply?
> >> >>
> >> >>Cheers,
> >> >>Arashmid
> >> >>
> >> >>> -Original Message-
> >> >>> From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sri
> >> >>> Gundavelli
> >> >>> (sgundave)
> >> >>> Sent: 06 July 2018 13:49
> >> >>> To: dmm@ietf.org
> >> >>> Subject: Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study
> >> >>> Item on User Plane Protocol in 5GC"
> >> >>>
> >> >>> We plan to send the following response to 3GPP CT4.  If you have
> >> >>>any quick  comments/corrections/suggestions, please let us know in a
> day.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> ³
> >> >>> Thank you for your Liaison request (Reference: CP-173160) and for
> >> >>>sharing  the information on the status of the CT4 study item on
> >> >>>user-plane protocol  for 5GC. The IETF DMM working group wants to
> >> >>>acknowledge your request  and want to share the following update.
> >> >>>
> >> >>&g

Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User Plane Protocol in 5GC"

[Bogineni, Kalyani]

Sri:

Here is one edit in the last sentence to allow IETF to take feedback from 3GPP:

"Please let us know if you need any additional information. Also please provide 
any evaluation criteria that
could help us in progressing our work to support 5G."

Kalyani

-Original Message-
From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
Sent: Monday, July 9, 2018 11:51 AM
To: Arashmid Akhavain ; dmm@ietf.org
Subject: [E] Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on 
User Plane Protocol in 5GC"

Hi Arashmid/Kalyani,

Thank you both for your feedback.

Yes, we thought its better to keep the focus on problem statement and 
requirement analysis. We don’t want to prematurely high-light any solution 
documents to SDO. Which did not go through proper review process, as it will 
only result in confusing them.


> Having said that however, I think a general statement about proof of 
>concepts can help the cause.

The current text provides an high-level update and status on where the WG is 
going, and a also a pointer to all documents under review. I am personally not 
keen on making additional edits, unless you guys think the change is absolutely 
needed and will make a difference in CT4 discussion.
So, if you are keen on seeing any such changes, please propose the exact text. 
But, if you have no objections to the current response, we can let this go. In 
future liaisons we can have detailed technical exchanges.


Sri



On 7/9/18, 7:23 AM, "Arashmid Akhavain" 
wrote:

>Hi Sri,
>
>Thank you for your clarifying email. The POC draft talks about the SRv6 
>demos and I can see how it can be seen as a document advocating a 
>particular solution strategy.
>So, I agree that we should stay away from specific POCs and drafts in 
>the LS. Having said that however, I think a general statement about 
>proof of concepts can help the cause.
>
>At this point I think it is more important to discuss the GAPs in 
>existing system rather than focusing on different solutions. That's why 
>I really like what
>draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-00 is trying to do.
>
>Cheers,
>Arashmid
>   
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) [mailto:sgund...@cisco.com]
>> Sent: 08 July 2018 19:29
>> To: Arashmid Akhavain ; dmm@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on 
>> User Plane Protocol in 5GC"
>> 
>> Hi Arashmid,
>> 
>> We were trying to avoid this debate on inclusion/exclusions of 
>>individual I-  D’s, but looks like we are just doing that. That is 
>>fine. Lets review the  situation.
>> 
>> The approach on what documents to be explicitly listed is based on 
>> the following principles.
>> 
>> #1 Provide references to DMM WG documents that have any relation to 
>>the  study item in 5GC.
>> #2 Include references to individual I-D’s that have done broader  
>>requirement/solution analysis/comparative study on the topic of mobile 
>>user  plane optimization; documents that are not advocating a specific 
>>solution.
>> We also wanted to apply the constraint of documents that have had  
>>substantial discussions in the working group. In other words, 
>>documents that  were reviewed by the WG and received significantly 
>>high number of  comments.
>> 
>> 
>> For #1: we have included draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-02.txt, as 
>>its a  WG document on track for standardization.
>> 
>> For #2: we have included draft-bogineni as there were many  
>>discussions/presentations/conference calls on that draft. We have also  
>>included draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-00, but however this draft 
>>was  published recently and had near zero discussions in the WG. But 
>>given the  quality of the document and noting that its about 
>>requirement analysis and  as its not advocating a specific solution, 
>>we chose to keep this document in  the list.
>> 
>> We have not included any other I-D’s which have not had enough 
>>discussions  and which are solution specific documents. Not that we 
>>have not established  the draft applicability to the 3GPP study item. 
>>These include:
>> 
>> draft-auge-dmm-hicn-mobility-00,
>> draft-auge-dmm-hicn-mobility-deployment-options-00,
>> draft-camarillo-dmm-srv6-mobile-pocs-00,
>> draft-gundavelli-dmm-mfa-00
>> draft-homma-dmm-5gs-id-loc-coexistence-01,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Now, if this sounds unreasonable or unfair, we have two options.
>> 
>> #1 Remove references to all individual drafts and only include WG 
>> documents
>> #2: Include every single I-D (WG and non WG) documents.

Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User Plane Protocol in 5GC"

[Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)]

acks up all the analysis work that everyone have been involved
>> >in for the last while.
>> >
>> >I agree, we do want to keep it simple, but the POCs can certainly add
>>to
>> >the strength of the LS.
>> >
>> >Regards,
>> >Arashmid
>> >
>> >-Original Message-
>> >From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) [mailto:sgund...@cisco.com]
>> >Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2018 2:25 AM
>> >To: Arashmid Akhavain ; dmm@ietf.org
>> >Subject: Re: New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User
>> >Plane Protocol in 5GC"
>> >
>> >Hi Arashmid,
>> >
>> >Thanks for the feedback.
>> >
>> >I have added a link to the DMM WG pages and it has links to all the DMM
>> >documents. I think that should be OK, we don’t have to explicitly list
>> >out every single I-D at this stage. As we move forward and based on WG
>> >discussions/progress, we can provide more detailed feedback on each
>> >document. I suggest we keep this simple for now.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> So, what happens next? We wait for their reply?
>> >
>> >This is just a response to the LS; more an information exchange on the
>> >status/progress.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Regards
>> >Sri
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >On 7/6/18, 1:56 PM, "Arashmid Akhavain"
>> 
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>Hi Sri,
>> >>
>> >>We might also want to add draft-camarillo-dmm-srv6-mobile-pocs-00
>> >>under "Related Documents".
>> >>
>> >>Also, we might want to say something like:
>> >>"Although we will NOT pick a particular approach, we will be ready to
>> >>provide further assistance to 3GPP regarding the technical details of
>> >>different candidates."
>> >>
>> >>So, what happens next? We wait for their reply?
>> >>
>> >>Cheers,
>> >>Arashmid
>> >>
>> >>> -Original Message-
>> >>> From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli
>> >>> (sgundave)
>> >>> Sent: 06 July 2018 13:49
>> >>> To: dmm@ietf.org
>> >>> Subject: Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item
>> >>> on User Plane Protocol in 5GC"
>> >>>
>> >>> We plan to send the following response to 3GPP CT4.  If you have any
>> >>>quick  comments/corrections/suggestions, please let us know in a day.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> ³
>> >>> Thank you for your Liaison request (Reference: CP-173160) and for
>> >>>sharing  the information on the status of the CT4 study item on
>> >>>user-plane protocol  for 5GC. The IETF DMM working group wants to
>> >>>acknowledge your request  and want to share the following update.
>> >>>
>> >>> IETF DMM working is currently reviewing various proposals on
>> >>>approaches  for realizing optimizations in user-plane for mobile
>> >>>packet core. These  proposals include protocol specifications based
>>on
>> >>>new/existing protocols  and proposals covering
>> >>>requirements/analysis/comparison of various  approaches. At this
>>point
>> >>>of time, some of these documents are working  group documents and
>> some
>> >>>are individual submissions and yet to be  adopted as working group
>> >>>documents.  Based on the working group interest,  feedback
>> >>>charter-scope, the working group may choose to adopt some of  these
>> >>>work items as working group documents and at that time will seek
>> >>>feedback from 3GPP.
>> >>>
>> >>> We also would like to state that the DMM working group will not be
>>in
>> >>>a  position to pick a single approach/solution as THE approach for
>> >>>user-plane  optimization. Most likely the working group may
>> >>>standardize more than one  approach, but will characterize each of
>> >>>these approaches based on its  technical capabilities and
>>limitations.
>> >>>This approach would be consistent with  the approach that IETF took
>> >>>with IPv6 transitioning work, where IETF  standardized multiple
>> >>>approaches including DSLite, NAT64, 

Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User Plane Protocol in 5GC"

[Arashmid Akhavain]

; >
> >>Hi Sri,
> >>
> >>We might also want to add draft-camarillo-dmm-srv6-mobile-pocs-00
> >>under "Related Documents".
> >>
> >>Also, we might want to say something like:
> >>"Although we will NOT pick a particular approach, we will be ready to
> >>provide further assistance to 3GPP regarding the technical details of
> >>different candidates."
> >>
> >>So, what happens next? We wait for their reply?
> >>
> >>Cheers,
> >>Arashmid
> >>
> >>> -Original Message-
> >>> From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli
> >>> (sgundave)
> >>> Sent: 06 July 2018 13:49
> >>> To: dmm@ietf.org
> >>> Subject: Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item
> >>> on User Plane Protocol in 5GC"
> >>>
> >>> We plan to send the following response to 3GPP CT4.  If you have any
> >>>quick  comments/corrections/suggestions, please let us know in a day.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ³
> >>> Thank you for your Liaison request (Reference: CP-173160) and for
> >>>sharing  the information on the status of the CT4 study item on
> >>>user-plane protocol  for 5GC. The IETF DMM working group wants to
> >>>acknowledge your request  and want to share the following update.
> >>>
> >>> IETF DMM working is currently reviewing various proposals on
> >>>approaches  for realizing optimizations in user-plane for mobile
> >>>packet core. These  proposals include protocol specifications based on
> >>>new/existing protocols  and proposals covering
> >>>requirements/analysis/comparison of various  approaches. At this point
> >>>of time, some of these documents are working  group documents and
> some
> >>>are individual submissions and yet to be  adopted as working group
> >>>documents.  Based on the working group interest,  feedback
> >>>charter-scope, the working group may choose to adopt some of  these
> >>>work items as working group documents and at that time will seek
> >>>feedback from 3GPP.
> >>>
> >>> We also would like to state that the DMM working group will not be in
> >>>a  position to pick a single approach/solution as THE approach for
> >>>user-plane  optimization. Most likely the working group may
> >>>standardize more than one  approach, but will characterize each of
> >>>these approaches based on its  technical capabilities and limitations.
> >>>This approach would be consistent with  the approach that IETF took
> >>>with IPv6 transitioning work, where IETF  standardized multiple
> >>>approaches including DSLite, NAT64, Gi-DSLite and  other approaches.
> >>>
> >>> Finally, IETF would like to point 3GPP to the following documents
> >>> under consideration.
> >>>
> >>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-bogineni-dmm-optimized-mobile-user-
> plane
> >>> -
> >>> 01.tx
> >>> t (Individual submission)
> >>>
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-
> analysis
> >>> -
> >>> 00.tx
> >>> t (Individual submission)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Related Documents:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-02.txt
> >>>(Working
> >>> group document)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Link to DMM Pages:
> >>>
> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dmm/documents/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Please let us know if you need any additional information.
> >>> "
> >>>
> >>> -
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 4/11/18, 11:16 AM, "Liaison Statement Management Tool"
> >>> 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >Title: CP-173160: New Study Item on User Plane Protocol in 5GC
> >>> >Submission Date: 2018-04-11 URL of the IETF Web page:
> >>> >https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1572/
> >>> >Please reply by 2018-07-20
> >>> >From: Satoru Matsushima 
> >>> >To: Sri Gundavelli ,Dapeng Liu
> >>> >
> >>>

Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User Plane Protocol in 5GC"

[Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)]

Hi Arashmid,

We were trying to avoid this debate on inclusion/exclusions of individual
I-D’s, but looks like we are just doing that. That is fine. Lets review
the situation.

The approach on what documents to be explicitly listed is based on the
following principles.

#1 Provide references to DMM WG documents that have any relation to the
study item in 5GC. 
#2 Include references to individual I-D’s that have done broader
requirement/solution analysis/comparative study on the topic of mobile
user plane optimization; documents that are not advocating a specific
solution. We also wanted to apply the constraint of documents that have
had substantial discussions in the working group. In other words,
documents that were reviewed by the WG and received significantly high
number of comments.


For #1: we have included draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-02.txt, as its
a WG document on track for standardization.

For #2: we have included draft-bogineni as there were many
discussions/presentations/conference calls on that draft. We have also
included draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-00, but however this draft was
published recently and had near zero discussions in the WG. But given the
quality of the document and noting that its about requirement analysis and
as its not advocating a specific solution, we chose to keep this document
in the list. 

We have not included any other I-D’s which have not had enough discussions
and which are solution specific documents. Not that we have not
established the draft applicability to the 3GPP study item. These include:

draft-auge-dmm-hicn-mobility-00,
draft-auge-dmm-hicn-mobility-deployment-options-00, 
draft-camarillo-dmm-srv6-mobile-pocs-00,
draft-gundavelli-dmm-mfa-00
draft-homma-dmm-5gs-id-loc-coexistence-01,



Now, if this sounds unreasonable or unfair, we have two options.

#1 Remove references to all individual drafts and only include WG
documents 
#2: Include every single I-D (WG and non WG) documents.


All - Please comment.



Sri






On 7/8/18, 2:14 PM, "Arashmid Akhavain" 
wrote:

>Hi Sri,
>Thank you for the reply. Pablo's draft is rather different as it
>describes the two POCs addressing the mobile core data plane.
>Referencing the POCs in the LS can help put things into perspective and
>sort of backs up all the analysis work that everyone have been involved
>in for the last while.
>
>I agree, we do want to keep it simple, but the POCs can certainly add to
>the strength of the LS.
>
>Regards,
>Arashmid
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) [mailto:sgund...@cisco.com]
>Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2018 2:25 AM
>To: Arashmid Akhavain ; dmm@ietf.org
>Subject: Re: New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User
>Plane Protocol in 5GC"
>
>Hi Arashmid,
>
>Thanks for the feedback.
>
>I have added a link to the DMM WG pages and it has links to all the DMM
>documents. I think that should be OK, we don’t have to explicitly list
>out every single I-D at this stage. As we move forward and based on WG
>discussions/progress, we can provide more detailed feedback on each
>document. I suggest we keep this simple for now.
>
>
>
>> So, what happens next? We wait for their reply?
>
>This is just a response to the LS; more an information exchange on the
>status/progress.
>
>
>
>Regards
>Sri
>
>
>
>
>On 7/6/18, 1:56 PM, "Arashmid Akhavain" 
>wrote:
>
>>Hi Sri,
>>
>>We might also want to add draft-camarillo-dmm-srv6-mobile-pocs-00
>>under "Related Documents".
>>
>>Also, we might want to say something like:
>>"Although we will NOT pick a particular approach, we will be ready to
>>provide further assistance to 3GPP regarding the technical details of
>>different candidates."
>>
>>So, what happens next? We wait for their reply?
>>
>>Cheers,
>>Arashmid
>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli
>>> (sgundave)
>>> Sent: 06 July 2018 13:49
>>> To: dmm@ietf.org
>>> Subject: Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item
>>> on User Plane Protocol in 5GC"
>>> 
>>> We plan to send the following response to 3GPP CT4.  If you have any
>>>quick  comments/corrections/suggestions, please let us know in a day.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ³
>>> Thank you for your Liaison request (Reference: CP-173160) and for
>>>sharing  the information on the status of the CT4 study item on
>>>user-plane protocol  for 5GC. The IETF DMM working group wants to
>>>acknowledge your request  and want to share the following update.
>>> 

Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User Plane Protocol in 5GC"

[Arashmid Akhavain]

Hi Sri,
Thank you for the reply. Pablo's draft is rather different as it describes the 
two POCs addressing the mobile core data plane.
Referencing the POCs in the LS can help put things into perspective and sort of 
backs up all the analysis work that everyone have been involved in for the last 
while.

I agree, we do want to keep it simple, but the POCs can certainly add to the 
strength of the LS.

Regards,
Arashmid

-Original Message-
From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) [mailto:sgund...@cisco.com] 
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2018 2:25 AM
To: Arashmid Akhavain ; dmm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User Plane 
Protocol in 5GC"

Hi Arashmid,

Thanks for the feedback.

I have added a link to the DMM WG pages and it has links to all the DMM 
documents. I think that should be OK, we don’t have to explicitly list out 
every single I-D at this stage. As we move forward and based on WG 
discussions/progress, we can provide more detailed feedback on each document. I 
suggest we keep this simple for now.



> So, what happens next? We wait for their reply?

This is just a response to the LS; more an information exchange on the 
status/progress.



Regards
Sri




On 7/6/18, 1:56 PM, "Arashmid Akhavain" 
wrote:

>Hi Sri,
>
>We might also want to add draft-camarillo-dmm-srv6-mobile-pocs-00
>under "Related Documents".
>
>Also, we might want to say something like:
>"Although we will NOT pick a particular approach, we will be ready to 
>provide further assistance to 3GPP regarding the technical details of 
>different candidates."
>
>So, what happens next? We wait for their reply?
>
>Cheers,
>Arashmid
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli
>> (sgundave)
>> Sent: 06 July 2018 13:49
>> To: dmm@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item 
>> on User Plane Protocol in 5GC"
>> 
>> We plan to send the following response to 3GPP CT4.  If you have any 
>>quick  comments/corrections/suggestions, please let us know in a day.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ³
>> Thank you for your Liaison request (Reference: CP-173160) and for 
>>sharing  the information on the status of the CT4 study item on 
>>user-plane protocol  for 5GC. The IETF DMM working group wants to 
>>acknowledge your request  and want to share the following update.
>> 
>> IETF DMM working is currently reviewing various proposals on 
>>approaches  for realizing optimizations in user-plane for mobile 
>>packet core. These  proposals include protocol specifications based on 
>>new/existing protocols  and proposals covering 
>>requirements/analysis/comparison of various  approaches. At this point 
>>of time, some of these documents are working  group documents and some 
>>are individual submissions and yet to be  adopted as working group 
>>documents.  Based on the working group interest,  feedback 
>>charter-scope, the working group may choose to adopt some of  these 
>>work items as working group documents and at that time will seek  
>>feedback from 3GPP.
>> 
>> We also would like to state that the DMM working group will not be in 
>>a  position to pick a single approach/solution as THE approach for 
>>user-plane  optimization. Most likely the working group may 
>>standardize more than one  approach, but will characterize each of 
>>these approaches based on its  technical capabilities and limitations. 
>>This approach would be consistent with  the approach that IETF took 
>>with IPv6 transitioning work, where IETF  standardized multiple 
>>approaches including DSLite, NAT64, Gi-DSLite and  other approaches.
>> 
>> Finally, IETF would like to point 3GPP to the following documents 
>> under consideration.
>> 
>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-bogineni-dmm-optimized-mobile-user-plane
>> -
>> 01.tx
>> t (Individual submission)
>> 
>> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis
>> -
>> 00.tx
>> t (Individual submission)
>> 
>> 
>> Related Documents:
>> 
>> 
>> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-02.txt
>>(Working
>> group document)
>> 
>> 
>> Link to DMM Pages:
>> 
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dmm/documents/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Please let us know if you need any additional information.
>> "
>> 
>> -
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 4/11/18, 11:16 AM, "Liaison Statement Management Tool"
>> 
&

Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User Plane Protocol in 5GC"

[Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)]

Hi Kalyani,

Thanks for the feedback.

Looking at the LS, I see the deadline as July 20th. Is that a mistake?
Unfortunately, we were going by the date listed in the LS.

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_l
iaison_1572_=DwIFAg=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ=IdiSO
Dh8aDRjdCeGgd9MznLHMYKgKcs_YSwXBDiaofh47oilzaXYRYETcBynUdpT=DpwNaCrfXd9EI
fo9xBxDQO1_hSmvZiI6uiV6fYe3rYU=4575vR5rygFrP_tvoH2z0iDv1njzued0M1dNS0wbTT
s=

Deadline: 2018-07-20 Action Needed


I do not know if we will be able to close this by 8th July.



Sri






On 7/7/18, 12:18 PM, "Bogineni, Kalyani"
 wrote:

>Sri:
>
>The LS response is fine as it reflects the status of the work in IETF.
>
>I am not sure when you plan to send the LS response since you requested
>feedback by July 13th.
>
>FYI, The next CT4 meeting is from July 9-13th as seen from the attached
>meeting Invitation.
>
>Attached is the meeting agenda - Input LSs will be processed on Monday
>July 9th from 9:00 - 11:30 AM.
>
>Regards, 
>Kalyani
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli
>(sgundave)
>Sent: Saturday, July 7, 2018 2:00 PM
>To: Arashmid Akhavain ; dmm@ietf.org
>Subject: [E] Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item
>on User Plane Protocol in 5GC"
>
>Folks - Here is the response in pending state. We are holding for WG
>feedback. 
>
>If you have any objections too this, please let us know by 13th of July,
>2018.
>
>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_
>liaison_1586_=DwIGaQ=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ=Idi
>SODh8aDRjdCeGgd9MznLHMYKgKcs_YSwXBDiaofh47oilzaXYRYETcBynUdpT=qxXTZYI7pM
>D_45zlLf4jtPJrGH6H0ygd_lgk8PE1o24=77-_DB88Sb27VyXuBt7_1OKS1QMBOTs_A_Ln-p
>GFsYc=
>
>
>Sri
>
>
>
>
>
>On 7/6/18, 11:25 PM, "dmm on behalf of Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)"
>
>wrote:
>
>>Hi Arashmid,
>>
>>Thanks for the feedback.
>>
>>I have added a link to the DMM WG pages and it has links to all the DMM
>>documents. I think that should be OK, we don’t have to explicitly list
>>out every single I-D at this stage. As we move forward and based on WG
>>discussions/progress, we can provide more detailed feedback on each
>>document. I suggest we keep this simple for now.
>>
>>
>>
>>> So, what happens next? We wait for their reply?
>>
>>This is just a response to the LS; more an information exchange on the
>>status/progress.
>>
>>
>>
>>Regards
>>Sri
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On 7/6/18, 1:56 PM, "Arashmid Akhavain" 
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Hi Sri,
>>>
>>>We might also want to add draft-camarillo-dmm-srv6-mobile-pocs-00
>>>under "Related Documents".
>>>
>>>Also, we might want to say something like:
>>>"Although we will NOT pick a particular approach, we will be ready to
>>>provide further assistance to 3GPP regarding the technical details of
>>>different candidates."
>>>
>>>So, what happens next? We wait for their reply?
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>Arashmid
>>>
>>>> -Original Message-
>>>> From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli
>>>> (sgundave)
>>>> Sent: 06 July 2018 13:49
>>>> To: dmm@ietf.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item
>>>> on User Plane Protocol in 5GC"
>>>> 
>>>> We plan to send the following response to 3GPP CT4.  If you have any
>>>>quick  comments/corrections/suggestions, please let us know in a day.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ³
>>>> Thank you for your Liaison request (Reference: CP-173160) and for
>>>>sharing  the information on the status of the CT4 study item on
>>>>user-plane protocol  for 5GC. The IETF DMM working group wants to
>>>>acknowledge your request  and want to share the following update.
>>>> 
>>>> IETF DMM working is currently reviewing various proposals on
>>>>approaches  for realizing optimizations in user-plane for mobile
>>>>packet core. These  proposals include protocol specifications based
>>>>on new/existing protocols  and proposals covering
>>>>requirements/analysis/comparison of various  approaches. At this
>>>>point of time, some of these documents are working  group documents
>>>>and some are individual submissions and yet to be

Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User Plane Protocol in 5GC"

[Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)]

Folks - Here is the response in pending state. We are holding for WG
feedback. 

If you have any objections too this, please let us know by 13th of July,
2018.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1586/


Sri





On 7/6/18, 11:25 PM, "dmm on behalf of Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)"

wrote:

>Hi Arashmid,
>
>Thanks for the feedback.
>
>I have added a link to the DMM WG pages and it has links to all the DMM
>documents. I think that should be OK, we don’t have to explicitly list out
>every single I-D at this stage. As we move forward and based on WG
>discussions/progress, we can provide more detailed feedback on each
>document. I suggest we keep this simple for now.
>
>
>
>> So, what happens next? We wait for their reply?
>
>This is just a response to the LS; more an information exchange on the
>status/progress.
>
>
>
>Regards
>Sri
>
>
>
>
>On 7/6/18, 1:56 PM, "Arashmid Akhavain" 
>wrote:
>
>>Hi Sri,
>>
>>We might also want to add draft-camarillo-dmm-srv6-mobile-pocs-00
>>under "Related Documents".
>>
>>Also, we might want to say something like:
>>"Although we will NOT pick a particular approach,
>>we will be ready to provide further assistance to 3GPP regarding
>>the technical details of different candidates."
>>
>>So, what happens next? We wait for their reply?
>>
>>Cheers,
>>Arashmid
>>
>>> -Original Message-----
>>> From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli
>>> (sgundave)
>>> Sent: 06 July 2018 13:49
>>> To: dmm@ietf.org
>>> Subject: Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on
>>> User Plane Protocol in 5GC"
>>> 
>>> We plan to send the following response to 3GPP CT4.  If you have any
>>>quick
>>> comments/corrections/suggestions, please let us know in a day.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ³
>>> Thank you for your Liaison request (Reference: CP-173160) and for
>>>sharing
>>> the information on the status of the CT4 study item on user-plane
>>>protocol
>>> for 5GC. The IETF DMM working group wants to acknowledge your request
>>> and want to share the following update.
>>> 
>>> IETF DMM working is currently reviewing various proposals on approaches
>>> for realizing optimizations in user-plane for mobile packet core. These
>>> proposals include protocol specifications based on new/existing
>>>protocols
>>> and proposals covering requirements/analysis/comparison of various
>>> approaches. At this point of time, some of these documents are working
>>> group documents and some are individual submissions and yet to be
>>> adopted as working group documents.  Based on the working group
>>>interest,
>>> feedback charter-scope, the working group may choose to adopt some of
>>> these work items as working group documents and at that time will seek
>>> feedback from 3GPP.
>>> 
>>> We also would like to state that the DMM working group will not be in a
>>> position to pick a single approach/solution as THE approach for
>>>user-plane
>>> optimization. Most likely the working group may standardize more than
>>>one
>>> approach, but will characterize each of these approaches based on its
>>> technical capabilities and limitations. This approach would be
>>>consistent with
>>> the approach that IETF took with IPv6 transitioning work, where IETF
>>> standardized multiple approaches including DSLite, NAT64, Gi-DSLite and
>>> other approaches.
>>> 
>>> Finally, IETF would like to point 3GPP to the following documents under
>>> consideration.
>>> 
>>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-bogineni-dmm-optimized-mobile-user-plane-
>>> 01.tx
>>> t (Individual submission)
>>> 
>>> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-
>>> 00.tx
>>> t (Individual submission)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Related Documents:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-02.txt
>>>(Working
>>> group document)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Link to DMM Pages:
>>> 
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dmm/documents/
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Please let us know if you need any additional information.
>>> "
>>> 
>>> -
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>&g

Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User Plane Protocol in 5GC"

[Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)]

Hi Arashmid,

Thanks for the feedback.

I have added a link to the DMM WG pages and it has links to all the DMM
documents. I think that should be OK, we don’t have to explicitly list out
every single I-D at this stage. As we move forward and based on WG
discussions/progress, we can provide more detailed feedback on each
document. I suggest we keep this simple for now.



> So, what happens next? We wait for their reply?

This is just a response to the LS; more an information exchange on the
status/progress.



Regards
Sri




On 7/6/18, 1:56 PM, "Arashmid Akhavain" 
wrote:

>Hi Sri,
>
>We might also want to add draft-camarillo-dmm-srv6-mobile-pocs-00
>under "Related Documents".
>
>Also, we might want to say something like:
>"Although we will NOT pick a particular approach,
>we will be ready to provide further assistance to 3GPP regarding
>the technical details of different candidates."
>
>So, what happens next? We wait for their reply?
>
>Cheers,
>Arashmid
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli
>> (sgundave)
>> Sent: 06 July 2018 13:49
>> To: dmm@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on
>> User Plane Protocol in 5GC"
>> 
>> We plan to send the following response to 3GPP CT4.  If you have any
>>quick
>> comments/corrections/suggestions, please let us know in a day.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ³
>> Thank you for your Liaison request (Reference: CP-173160) and for
>>sharing
>> the information on the status of the CT4 study item on user-plane
>>protocol
>> for 5GC. The IETF DMM working group wants to acknowledge your request
>> and want to share the following update.
>> 
>> IETF DMM working is currently reviewing various proposals on approaches
>> for realizing optimizations in user-plane for mobile packet core. These
>> proposals include protocol specifications based on new/existing
>>protocols
>> and proposals covering requirements/analysis/comparison of various
>> approaches. At this point of time, some of these documents are working
>> group documents and some are individual submissions and yet to be
>> adopted as working group documents.  Based on the working group
>>interest,
>> feedback charter-scope, the working group may choose to adopt some of
>> these work items as working group documents and at that time will seek
>> feedback from 3GPP.
>> 
>> We also would like to state that the DMM working group will not be in a
>> position to pick a single approach/solution as THE approach for
>>user-plane
>> optimization. Most likely the working group may standardize more than
>>one
>> approach, but will characterize each of these approaches based on its
>> technical capabilities and limitations. This approach would be
>>consistent with
>> the approach that IETF took with IPv6 transitioning work, where IETF
>> standardized multiple approaches including DSLite, NAT64, Gi-DSLite and
>> other approaches.
>> 
>> Finally, IETF would like to point 3GPP to the following documents under
>> consideration.
>> 
>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-bogineni-dmm-optimized-mobile-user-plane-
>> 01.tx
>> t (Individual submission)
>> 
>> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-
>> 00.tx
>> t (Individual submission)
>> 
>> 
>> Related Documents:
>> 
>> 
>> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-02.txt
>>(Working
>> group document)
>> 
>> 
>> Link to DMM Pages:
>> 
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dmm/documents/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Please let us know if you need any additional information.
>> "
>> 
>> -
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 4/11/18, 11:16 AM, "Liaison Statement Management Tool"
>> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> >Title: CP-173160: New Study Item on User Plane Protocol in 5GC
>> >Submission Date: 2018-04-11 URL of the IETF Web page:
>> >https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1572/
>> >Please reply by 2018-07-20
>> >From: Satoru Matsushima 
>> >To: Sri Gundavelli ,Dapeng Liu
>> >
>> >Cc: Dapeng Liu ,Terry Manderson
>> >,Distributed Mobility Management
>> Discussion
>> >List ,Sri Gundavelli ,Suresh
>> Krishnan
>> > Response Contacts:
>> >georg.mayer.hua...@gmx.com,3gppliai...@etsi.org
>> >Technical Contacts:
>> >Purpose: For actio

Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User Plane Protocol in 5GC"

[Arashmid Akhavain]

Hi Sri,

We might also want to add draft-camarillo-dmm-srv6-mobile-pocs-00
under "Related Documents".

Also, we might want to say something like:
"Although we will NOT pick a particular approach, 
we will be ready to provide further assistance to 3GPP regarding 
the technical details of different candidates."

So, what happens next? We wait for their reply? 

Cheers,
Arashmid

> -Original Message-
> From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli
> (sgundave)
> Sent: 06 July 2018 13:49
> To: dmm@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on
> User Plane Protocol in 5GC"
> 
> We plan to send the following response to 3GPP CT4.  If you have any quick
> comments/corrections/suggestions, please let us know in a day.
> 
> 
> 
> ³
> Thank you for your Liaison request (Reference: CP-173160) and for sharing
> the information on the status of the CT4 study item on user-plane protocol
> for 5GC. The IETF DMM working group wants to acknowledge your request
> and want to share the following update.
> 
> IETF DMM working is currently reviewing various proposals on approaches
> for realizing optimizations in user-plane for mobile packet core. These
> proposals include protocol specifications based on new/existing protocols
> and proposals covering requirements/analysis/comparison of various
> approaches. At this point of time, some of these documents are working
> group documents and some are individual submissions and yet to be
> adopted as working group documents.  Based on the working group interest,
> feedback charter-scope, the working group may choose to adopt some of
> these work items as working group documents and at that time will seek
> feedback from 3GPP.
> 
> We also would like to state that the DMM working group will not be in a
> position to pick a single approach/solution as THE approach for user-plane
> optimization. Most likely the working group may standardize more than one
> approach, but will characterize each of these approaches based on its
> technical capabilities and limitations. This approach would be consistent with
> the approach that IETF took with IPv6 transitioning work, where IETF
> standardized multiple approaches including DSLite, NAT64, Gi-DSLite and
> other approaches.
> 
> Finally, IETF would like to point 3GPP to the following documents under
> consideration.
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-bogineni-dmm-optimized-mobile-user-plane-
> 01.tx
> t (Individual submission)
> 
> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-
> 00.tx
> t (Individual submission)
> 
> 
> Related Documents:
> 
> 
> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-02.txt (Working
> group document)
> 
> 
> Link to DMM Pages:
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dmm/documents/
> 
> 
> 
> Please let us know if you need any additional information.
> "
> 
> -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/11/18, 11:16 AM, "Liaison Statement Management Tool"
> 
> wrote:
> 
> >Title: CP-173160: New Study Item on User Plane Protocol in 5GC
> >Submission Date: 2018-04-11 URL of the IETF Web page:
> >https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1572/
> >Please reply by 2018-07-20
> >From: Satoru Matsushima 
> >To: Sri Gundavelli ,Dapeng Liu
> >
> >Cc: Dapeng Liu ,Terry Manderson
> >,Distributed Mobility Management
> Discussion
> >List ,Sri Gundavelli ,Suresh
> Krishnan
> > Response Contacts:
> >georg.mayer.hua...@gmx.com,3gppliai...@etsi.org
> >Technical Contacts:
> >Purpose: For action
> >
> >Body: 1. Overall Description:
> >3GPP working group of CT4 (Core and Terminal) would like to inform the
> >IETF that CT4 has initiated a study item on user plane protocol in 5GC
> >for Release-16 of 5G phase 2 (see CP-173160).
> >
> >Based on the outcome from the IETF / 3GPP Coordination meeting at
> >IETF#100, 3GPP CT4 got aware that IETF DMM WG is currently working on a
> >possible candidate protocol for the 3GPP 5G user plane protocol.
> >
> >3GPP CT4 wants to emphasize that currently there is no related
> >evaluation ongoing in 3GPP. Nevertheless, a study item was approved for
> >such a study to start in the second half of 2018. The study will
> >evaluate between existing solutions within 3GPP and other protocols,
> >based on the Release
> >16 stage 2 (system architecture) requirements.
> >
> >3GPP CT4 would like to point IETF DMM to the following specifications
> >on GTP-U. The Release 16 stage 2 requirements are not yet known but it
> >is worth looking 

Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User Plane Protocol in 5GC"

[Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)]

We plan to send the following response to 3GPP CT4.  If you have any quick
comments/corrections/suggestions, please let us know in a day.



³
Thank you for your Liaison request (Reference: CP-173160) and for sharing
the information on the status of the CT4 study item on user-plane protocol
for 5GC. The IETF DMM working group wants to acknowledge your request and
want to share the following update.

IETF DMM working is currently reviewing various proposals on approaches
for realizing optimizations in user-plane for mobile packet core. These
proposals include protocol specifications based on new/existing protocols
and proposals covering requirements/analysis/comparison of various
approaches. At this point of time, some of these documents are working
group documents and some are individual submissions and yet to be adopted
as working group documents.  Based on the working group interest, feedback
charter-scope, the working group may choose to adopt some of these work
items as working group documents and at that time will seek feedback from
3GPP. 

We also would like to state that the DMM working group will not be in a
position to pick a single approach/solution as THE approach for user-plane
optimization. Most likely the working group may standardize more than one
approach, but will characterize each of these approaches based on its
technical capabilities and limitations. This approach would be consistent
with the approach that IETF took with IPv6 transitioning work, where IETF
standardized multiple approaches including DSLite, NAT64, Gi-DSLite and
other approaches. 

Finally, IETF would like to point 3GPP to the following documents under
consideration. 

http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-bogineni-dmm-optimized-mobile-user-plane-01.tx
t (Individual submission)

https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-00.tx
t (Individual submission)


Related Documents:


https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-02.txt (Working
group document)


Link to DMM Pages:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dmm/documents/



Please let us know if you need any additional information.
"

-








On 4/11/18, 11:16 AM, "Liaison Statement Management Tool" 
wrote:

>Title: CP-173160: New Study Item on User Plane Protocol in 5GC
>Submission Date: 2018-04-11
>URL of the IETF Web page: https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1572/
>Please reply by 2018-07-20
>From: Satoru Matsushima 
>To: Sri Gundavelli ,Dapeng Liu 
>Cc: Dapeng Liu ,Terry Manderson
>,Distributed Mobility Management Discussion
>List ,Sri Gundavelli ,Suresh Krishnan
>
>Response Contacts: georg.mayer.hua...@gmx.com,3gppliai...@etsi.org
>Technical Contacts:
>Purpose: For action
>
>Body: 1. Overall Description:
>3GPP working group of CT4 (Core and Terminal) would like to inform the
>IETF that CT4 has initiated a study item on user plane protocol in 5GC
>for Release-16 of 5G phase 2 (see CP-173160).
>
>Based on the outcome from the IETF / 3GPP Coordination meeting at
>IETF#100, 3GPP CT4 got aware that IETF DMM WG is currently working on a
>possible candidate protocol for the 3GPP 5G user plane protocol.
>
>3GPP CT4 wants to emphasize that currently there is no related evaluation
>ongoing in 3GPP. Nevertheless, a study item was approved for such a study
>to start in the second half of 2018. The study will evaluate between
>existing solutions within 3GPP and other protocols, based on the Release
>16 stage 2 (system architecture) requirements.
>
>3GPP CT4 would like to point IETF DMM to the following specifications on
>GTP-U. The Release 16 stage 2 requirements are not yet known but it is
>worth looking at latest GTP-U spec which will be evaluated through the
>study as the existing protocol.
>
>€  [1] 3GPP TS 29.281 (V15.1.0): GPRS Tunnelling Protocol User Plane
>(GTPv1-U)
>
>
>Following technical report provides information of how 3GPP considered
>GTP-U apply to user plane of 5G_ph1:
>
>€  [2] 3GPP TR 29.891 (V15.0.0): 5G System ­ Phase 1; CT4 Aspects
>
>
>Furthermore, 3GPP would like to give the following general guidance to
>IETF DMM, regarding user plane transport within 3GPP networks. These are
>technical specifications that include also the necessary information to
>understand which architectural, QoS, security-related and high-level
>requirements GTP-U currently complies to within 5G_ph1.
>
>€  [3] 3GPP TS 23.501 (V15.0.0): System Architecture for the 5G System
>€  [4] 3GPP TS 23.502 (V15.0.0): Procedures for the 5G System
>€  [5] 3GPP TS 23.503 (V15.0.0): Policy and Charging Framework for the 5G
>System
>€  [6] 3GPP TS 33.501 (V0.6.0): Security Architecture (work in progress)
>
>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.
>
>
>3. Date of Next CT and CT4 Meetings:
>CT4#83 26th Feb ­ 2nd Mar 2018 Montreal, CAN
>CT#79  19th ­ 20th Mar 2018Chennai, India
>CT4#84 16th ­ 20th April 2018  Kunming, 

Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User Plane Protocol in 5GC"

[Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)]

Hi Arashmid,

Thanks for the pointers.

We are trying to keep the response simple and just provide the status of
relevant documents under consideration. Will share the response on what we
plan to send.


Sri
 

On 6/29/18, 7:31 AM, "Arashmid Akhavain" 
wrote:

>Hi Sri,
>There two drafts that DMM can perhaps use in the response.
>
>https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-00.t
>xt
>http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-bogineni-dmm-optimized-mobile-user-plane-01.t
>xt
>
>Please let us know how you would like to proceed and how we can help.
>
>Arashmid
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli
>> (sgundave)
>> Sent: 22 June 2018 12:24
>> To: dmm@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on
>> User Plane Protocol in 5GC"
>> 
>> Folks - Back to this.
>> 
>> Any feedback on this? Now that we have waited for some time, I hope we
>> now have a view on this LS. I tend to think we should send a response
>>soon
>> before the July deadline.
>> 
>> Sri
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 4/16/18, 9:47 AM, "dmm on behalf of Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)"
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> >Hi Arashmid,
>> >
>> >I was not looking at their July date, but more about exchanging status
>> >of the work and seek feedback.
>> >
>> >I think, we now are on the same page now.
>> >
>> >Sri
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >On 4/16/18, 8:37 AM, "Arashmid Akhavain"
>> 
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>Thanks Kalyani,
>> >>That makes sense. The wording of the action item though sounded like
>> >>3GPP was trying to impose a deadline.
>> >>I just want to make sure that wasn't the case cause there is still a
>> >>lot of work to be done.
>> >>
>> >>Arashmid
>> >>
>> >>> -Original Message-
>> >>> From: Bogineni, Kalyani
>> >>> [mailto:kalyani.bogin...@verizonwireless.com]
>> >>> Sent: 16 April 2018 11:26
>> >>> To: Arashmid Akhavain ; Sri
>> Gundavelli
>> >>> (sgundave) ; dmm@ietf.org
>> >>> Subject: RE: New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on
>> >>> User Plane Protocol in 5GC"
>> >>>
>> >>> Arashmid - CT4 will start their study in July 2018. So work from
>> >>>IETF can  provide input into that study.
>> >>> Kalyani
>> >>>
>> >>> -Original Message-
>> >>> From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Arashmid
>> >>>Akhavain
>> >>> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 11:21 AM
>> >>> To: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) ; dmm@ietf.org
>> >>> Subject: [E] Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study
>> >>>Item  on User Plane Protocol in 5GC"
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi Sri,
>> >>>
>> >>> Thank you for clarification. I never suggested that IETF should
>> >>>single out a  particular proposal. On the contrary, I believe DMM
>> >>>should simply conduct  the study and provide 3GPP with all different
>> >>>options. 3GPP will decide what  to do with the proposals from that
>> >>>point on. As you mentioned there could  be several back and forth
>> >>>between the two SDOs.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> So, while I agree with all points, I am still puzzled by the
>> >>>following statement  in 3GPP email.
>> >>>
>> >>> What is the significance of the July 2018 date?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> ACTION:
>> >>>
>> >>> CT4 respectfully asks IETF DMM to provide any information that may
>> >>> be relevant to the above CT4
>> >>>
>> >>> work by July 2018.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Arashmid
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> > -Original Message-
>> >>>
>> >>> > From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) [mailto:sgund...@cisco.com]
>> >>>
>> >>> > Sent: 13 April 2018 19:06
>> >>>
>> >>> > 

Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User Plane Protocol in 5GC"

[Arashmid Akhavain]

Hi Sri,
There two drafts that DMM can perhaps use in the response. 

https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-00.txt
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-bogineni-dmm-optimized-mobile-user-plane-01.txt

Please let us know how you would like to proceed and how we can help.

Arashmid

> -Original Message-
> From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli
> (sgundave)
> Sent: 22 June 2018 12:24
> To: dmm@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on
> User Plane Protocol in 5GC"
> 
> Folks - Back to this.
> 
> Any feedback on this? Now that we have waited for some time, I hope we
> now have a view on this LS. I tend to think we should send a response soon
> before the July deadline.
> 
> Sri
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/16/18, 9:47 AM, "dmm on behalf of Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)"
>  wrote:
> 
> >Hi Arashmid,
> >
> >I was not looking at their July date, but more about exchanging status
> >of the work and seek feedback.
> >
> >I think, we now are on the same page now.
> >
> >Sri
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >On 4/16/18, 8:37 AM, "Arashmid Akhavain"
> 
> >wrote:
> >
> >>Thanks Kalyani,
> >>That makes sense. The wording of the action item though sounded like
> >>3GPP was trying to impose a deadline.
> >>I just want to make sure that wasn't the case cause there is still a
> >>lot of work to be done.
> >>
> >>Arashmid
> >>
> >>> -Original Message-
> >>> From: Bogineni, Kalyani
> >>> [mailto:kalyani.bogin...@verizonwireless.com]
> >>> Sent: 16 April 2018 11:26
> >>> To: Arashmid Akhavain ; Sri
> Gundavelli
> >>> (sgundave) ; dmm@ietf.org
> >>> Subject: RE: New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on
> >>> User Plane Protocol in 5GC"
> >>>
> >>> Arashmid - CT4 will start their study in July 2018. So work from
> >>>IETF can  provide input into that study.
> >>> Kalyani
> >>>
> >>> -Original Message-
> >>> From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Arashmid
> >>>Akhavain
> >>> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 11:21 AM
> >>> To: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) ; dmm@ietf.org
> >>> Subject: [E] Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study
> >>>Item  on User Plane Protocol in 5GC"
> >>>
> >>> Hi Sri,
> >>>
> >>> Thank you for clarification. I never suggested that IETF should
> >>>single out a  particular proposal. On the contrary, I believe DMM
> >>>should simply conduct  the study and provide 3GPP with all different
> >>>options. 3GPP will decide what  to do with the proposals from that
> >>>point on. As you mentioned there could  be several back and forth
> >>>between the two SDOs.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> So, while I agree with all points, I am still puzzled by the
> >>>following statement  in 3GPP email.
> >>>
> >>> What is the significance of the July 2018 date?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ACTION:
> >>>
> >>> CT4 respectfully asks IETF DMM to provide any information that may
> >>> be relevant to the above CT4
> >>>
> >>> work by July 2018.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Arashmid
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> > -Original Message-
> >>>
> >>> > From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) [mailto:sgund...@cisco.com]
> >>>
> >>> > Sent: 13 April 2018 19:06
> >>>
> >>> > To: Arashmid Akhavain ;
> dmm@ietf.org
> >>>
> >>> > Subject: Re: New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on
> >>>User
> >>>
> >>> > Plane Protocol in 5GC"
> >>>
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> > Hi Arashmid,
> >>>
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> > I am not seeing a relation to the LS Response and the July 2018
> >>>deadline
> >>> that
> >>>
> >>> > you are referring to. I think there is some disconnect here. Lets
> >>>review what
> >>>
> >>> > we the chairs are thinking

Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User Plane Protocol in 5GC"

[Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)]

Folks - Back to this.

Any feedback on this? Now that we have waited for some time, I hope we now
have a view on this LS. I tend to think we should send a response soon
before the July deadline.

Sri







On 4/16/18, 9:47 AM, "dmm on behalf of Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)"
 wrote:

>Hi Arashmid,
>
>I was not looking at their July date, but more about exchanging status of
>the work and seek feedback.
>
>I think, we now are on the same page now.
>
>Sri
>
>
>
>
>On 4/16/18, 8:37 AM, "Arashmid Akhavain" 
>wrote:
>
>>Thanks Kalyani,
>>That makes sense. The wording of the action item though sounded like 3GPP
>>was trying to impose a deadline.
>>I just want to make sure that wasn't the case cause there is still a lot
>>of work to be done.
>>
>>Arashmid
>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Bogineni, Kalyani [mailto:kalyani.bogin...@verizonwireless.com]
>>> Sent: 16 April 2018 11:26
>>> To: Arashmid Akhavain ; Sri Gundavelli
>>> (sgundave) ; dmm@ietf.org
>>> Subject: RE: New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User
>>> Plane Protocol in 5GC"
>>> 
>>> Arashmid - CT4 will start their study in July 2018. So work from IETF
>>>can
>>> provide input into that study.
>>> Kalyani
>>> 
>>> -Original Message-----
>>> From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Arashmid Akhavain
>>> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 11:21 AM
>>> To: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) ; dmm@ietf.org
>>> Subject: [E] Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study
>>>Item
>>> on User Plane Protocol in 5GC"
>>> 
>>> Hi Sri,
>>> 
>>> Thank you for clarification. I never suggested that IETF should single
>>>out a
>>> particular proposal. On the contrary, I believe DMM should simply
>>>conduct
>>> the study and provide 3GPP with all different options. 3GPP will decide
>>>what
>>> to do with the proposals from that point on. As you mentioned there
>>>could
>>> be several back and forth between the two SDOs.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> So, while I agree with all points, I am still puzzled by the following
>>>statement
>>> in 3GPP email.
>>> 
>>> What is the significance of the July 2018 date?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ACTION:
>>> 
>>> CT4 respectfully asks IETF DMM to provide any information that may be
>>> relevant to the above CT4
>>> 
>>> work by July 2018.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Arashmid
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> > -Original Message-
>>> 
>>> > From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) [mailto:sgund...@cisco.com]
>>> 
>>> > Sent: 13 April 2018 19:06
>>> 
>>> > To: Arashmid Akhavain ; dmm@ietf.org
>>> 
>>> > Subject: Re: New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on
>>>User
>>> 
>>> > Plane Protocol in 5GC"
>>> 
>>> >
>>> 
>>> > Hi Arashmid,
>>> 
>>> >
>>> 
>>> >
>>> 
>>> > I am not seeing a relation to the LS Response and the July 2018
>>>deadline
>>> that
>>> 
>>> > you are referring to. I think there is some disconnect here. Lets
>>>review what
>>> 
>>> > we the chairs are thinking.
>>> 
>>> >
>>> 
>>> >
>>> 
>>> > 1. The work in IETF related to User-Plane optimizations will continue
>>>for
>>> many
>>> 
>>> > months. When there is a LS Request, we will send a LS response. We
>>>will use
>>> 
>>> > LS query/response as a means to gather feedback from the SDO
>>>community,
>>> 
>>> > and provide an update on the status of all the documents in DMM at
>>>this
>>> 
>>> > time. The status includes update on WG documents and individual I-D’s
>>> under
>>> 
>>> > discussions.
>>> 
>>> >
>>> 
>>> > 2. We are not going with the assumption that there will only be a
>>>single LS
>>> 
>>> > request/response for this entire UP Study, but we will keep
>>>exchanging
>>> 
>>> > information based on the progress, and whenever we need additional
>>> 
>>> > clarifications.
>>> 
>

Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User Plane Protocol in 5GC"

[Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)]

Hi Arashmid,

I was not looking at their July date, but more about exchanging status of
the work and seek feedback.

I think, we now are on the same page now.

Sri




On 4/16/18, 8:37 AM, "Arashmid Akhavain" <arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com>
wrote:

>Thanks Kalyani,
>That makes sense. The wording of the action item though sounded like 3GPP
>was trying to impose a deadline.
>I just want to make sure that wasn't the case cause there is still a lot
>of work to be done.
>
>Arashmid
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Bogineni, Kalyani [mailto:kalyani.bogin...@verizonwireless.com]
>> Sent: 16 April 2018 11:26
>> To: Arashmid Akhavain <arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com>; Sri Gundavelli
>> (sgundave) <sgund...@cisco.com>; dmm@ietf.org
>> Subject: RE: New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User
>> Plane Protocol in 5GC"
>> 
>> Arashmid - CT4 will start their study in July 2018. So work from IETF
>>can
>> provide input into that study.
>> Kalyani
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Arashmid Akhavain
>> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 11:21 AM
>> To: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) <sgund...@cisco.com>; dmm@ietf.org
>> Subject: [E] Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item
>> on User Plane Protocol in 5GC"
>> 
>> Hi Sri,
>> 
>> Thank you for clarification. I never suggested that IETF should single
>>out a
>> particular proposal. On the contrary, I believe DMM should simply
>>conduct
>> the study and provide 3GPP with all different options. 3GPP will decide
>>what
>> to do with the proposals from that point on. As you mentioned there
>>could
>> be several back and forth between the two SDOs.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> So, while I agree with all points, I am still puzzled by the following
>>statement
>> in 3GPP email.
>> 
>> What is the significance of the July 2018 date?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ACTION:
>> 
>> CT4 respectfully asks IETF DMM to provide any information that may be
>> relevant to the above CT4
>> 
>> work by July 2018.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Arashmid
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> > -Original Message-
>> 
>> > From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) [mailto:sgund...@cisco.com]
>> 
>> > Sent: 13 April 2018 19:06
>> 
>> > To: Arashmid Akhavain <arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com>; dmm@ietf.org
>> 
>> > Subject: Re: New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User
>> 
>> > Plane Protocol in 5GC"
>> 
>> >
>> 
>> > Hi Arashmid,
>> 
>> >
>> 
>> >
>> 
>> > I am not seeing a relation to the LS Response and the July 2018
>>deadline
>> that
>> 
>> > you are referring to. I think there is some disconnect here. Lets
>>review what
>> 
>> > we the chairs are thinking.
>> 
>> >
>> 
>> >
>> 
>> > 1. The work in IETF related to User-Plane optimizations will continue
>>for
>> many
>> 
>> > months. When there is a LS Request, we will send a LS response. We
>>will use
>> 
>> > LS query/response as a means to gather feedback from the SDO
>>community,
>> 
>> > and provide an update on the status of all the documents in DMM at
>>this
>> 
>> > time. The status includes update on WG documents and individual I-D’s
>> under
>> 
>> > discussions.
>> 
>> >
>> 
>> > 2. We are not going with the assumption that there will only be a
>>single LS
>> 
>> > request/response for this entire UP Study, but we will keep exchanging
>> 
>> > information based on the progress, and whenever we need additional
>> 
>> > clarifications.
>> 
>> >
>> 
>> > 3. There are multiple proposals in IETF. As we have indicated in the
>>past, we
>> 
>> > are not going to recommend THE single solution and put it on a
>>platter for
>> 
>> > 3GPP consumption, but rather the focus will be on characterization of
>>each
>> 
>> > approach that we take up in DMM WG.
>> 
>> >
>> 
>> > Now, keeping this in mind, if there is a good reason not to send the
>>LS
>> 
>> > Response now, delay it by some time, or if we believe there is
>>nothing to
>> 
>> > respond, we can discuss and decide to do just that. Hope this makes
&

Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User Plane Protocol in 5GC"

[Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)]

> I think that it would be nice if we can respond with the acknowledge to
>what the LS asked us. That could show that the work is progressing in our
>side already.

Ack! That’s what we were thinking too.

Sri






On 4/16/18, 6:41 AM, "Satoru Matsushima" <satoru.matsush...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>I think that it would be nice if we can respond with the acknowledge to
>what the LS asked us. That could show that the work is progressing in our
>side already.
>
>As per the presentation of the UPPS SID and the LS in the last meeting in
>London, existing user plane protocol investigation we have now could be a
>content of the response.
>
>For example, I see that as following:
>
>1. TS29.281 still refers RFC2460 which doesn’t allow zero UDP checksum
>unlike IPv4/GTP-U case.
>
>2. While TS23.501 allows multihoming in single PDU session. It looks
>multipoint-to-point tunnel.
>   But TS29.281 still seems to keep GTP-U to be p2p tunnel.
>
>3. Unlike previous generation, TS23.501 allows multiple QFIs in a single
>PDU session. 
>   That means that just a single pair of endpoint addresses need to be
>handled to steer the data-path for the session in N3 and N9.
>
>Does anyone observe any other points?
>
>Best regards,
>--satoru
>
>
>> 2018/04/14 8:05、Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) <sgund...@cisco.com>のメール:
>> 
>> Hi Arashmid,
>> 
>> 
>> I am not seeing a relation to the LS Response and the July 2018 deadline
>> that you are referring to. I think there is some disconnect here. Lets
>> review what we the chairs are thinking.
>> 
>> 
>> 1. The work in IETF related to User-Plane optimizations will continue
>>for
>> many months. When there is a LS Request, we will send a LS response. We
>> will use LS query/response as a means to gather feedback from the SDO
>> community, and provide an update on the status of all the documents in
>>DMM
>> at this time. The status includes update on WG documents and individual
>> I-D’s under discussions.
>> 
>> 2. We are not going with the assumption that there will only be a single
>> LS request/response for this entire UP Study, but we will keep
>>exchanging
>> information based on the progress, and whenever we need additional
>> clarifications. 
>> 
>> 3. There are multiple proposals in IETF. As we have indicated in the
>>past,
>> we are not going to recommend THE single solution and put it on a
>>platter
>> for 3GPP consumption, but rather the focus will be on characterization
>>of
>> each approach that we take up in DMM WG.
>> 
>> Now, keeping this in mind, if there is a good reason not to send the LS
>> Response now, delay it by some time, or if we believe there is nothing
>>to
>> respond, we can discuss and decide to do just that. Hope this makes
>>sense.
>> 
>> Bottomline, all feedback is welcome!
>> 
>> 
>> Sri 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 4/13/18, 1:35 PM, "Arashmid Akhavain" <arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Sri,
>>> Thank you for getting back to us. They listed a few dates there. The
>>> final deadline is I guess July 2018.
>>> Are we targeting anything earlier?
>>> 
>>> Arashmid 
>>> 
>>>> -Original Message-
>>>> From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) [mailto:sgund...@cisco.com]
>>>> Sent: 13 April 2018 12:47
>>>> To: Arashmid Akhavain <arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com>; dmm@ietf.org
>>>> Subject: Re: New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User
>>>> Plane Protocol in 5GC"
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Arashmid,
>>>> 
>>>> We provide the status of the related work items in DMM, and seek any
>>>> clarifications on their CT4 work. Key thing from our point of view is
>>>> to get
>>>> their feedback on the work we are doing and try to meet their
>>>>timelines.
>>>> 
>>>> Sri
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 4/12/18, 10:53 AM, "Arashmid Akhavain"
>>>> <arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Sri,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Any idea what the plan is once we pass this information to CT4?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Arashmid
>>>>> 
>>>>>> -Original Message-
>>>>>> From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli
>>>>>> (sgundave)
>>>>>> Sent: 12 Apr

Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User Plane Protocol in 5GC"

[Arashmid Akhavain]

Thanks Kalyani,
That makes sense. The wording of the action item though sounded like 3GPP was 
trying to impose a deadline.
I just want to make sure that wasn't the case cause there is still a lot of 
work to be done.

Arashmid

> -Original Message-
> From: Bogineni, Kalyani [mailto:kalyani.bogin...@verizonwireless.com]
> Sent: 16 April 2018 11:26
> To: Arashmid Akhavain <arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com>; Sri Gundavelli
> (sgundave) <sgund...@cisco.com>; dmm@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User
> Plane Protocol in 5GC"
> 
> Arashmid - CT4 will start their study in July 2018. So work from IETF can
> provide input into that study.
> Kalyani
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Arashmid Akhavain
> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 11:21 AM
> To: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) <sgund...@cisco.com>; dmm@ietf.org
> Subject: [E] Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item
> on User Plane Protocol in 5GC"
> 
> Hi Sri,
> 
> Thank you for clarification. I never suggested that IETF should single out a
> particular proposal. On the contrary, I believe DMM should simply conduct
> the study and provide 3GPP with all different options. 3GPP will decide what
> to do with the proposals from that point on. As you mentioned there could
> be several back and forth between the two SDOs.
> 
> 
> 
> So, while I agree with all points, I am still puzzled by the following 
> statement
> in 3GPP email.
> 
> What is the significance of the July 2018 date?
> 
> 
> 
> ACTION:
> 
> CT4 respectfully asks IETF DMM to provide any information that may be
> relevant to the above CT4
> 
> work by July 2018.
> 
> 
> 
> Arashmid
> 
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> 
> > From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) [mailto:sgund...@cisco.com]
> 
> > Sent: 13 April 2018 19:06
> 
> > To: Arashmid Akhavain <arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com>; dmm@ietf.org
> 
> > Subject: Re: New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User
> 
> > Plane Protocol in 5GC"
> 
> >
> 
> > Hi Arashmid,
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> > I am not seeing a relation to the LS Response and the July 2018 deadline
> that
> 
> > you are referring to. I think there is some disconnect here. Lets review 
> > what
> 
> > we the chairs are thinking.
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> > 1. The work in IETF related to User-Plane optimizations will continue for
> many
> 
> > months. When there is a LS Request, we will send a LS response. We will use
> 
> > LS query/response as a means to gather feedback from the SDO community,
> 
> > and provide an update on the status of all the documents in DMM at this
> 
> > time. The status includes update on WG documents and individual I-D’s
> under
> 
> > discussions.
> 
> >
> 
> > 2. We are not going with the assumption that there will only be a single LS
> 
> > request/response for this entire UP Study, but we will keep exchanging
> 
> > information based on the progress, and whenever we need additional
> 
> > clarifications.
> 
> >
> 
> > 3. There are multiple proposals in IETF. As we have indicated in the past, 
> > we
> 
> > are not going to recommend THE single solution and put it on a platter for
> 
> > 3GPP consumption, but rather the focus will be on characterization of each
> 
> > approach that we take up in DMM WG.
> 
> >
> 
> > Now, keeping this in mind, if there is a good reason not to send the LS
> 
> > Response now, delay it by some time, or if we believe there is nothing to
> 
> > respond, we can discuss and decide to do just that. Hope this makes sense.
> 
> >
> 
> > Bottomline, all feedback is welcome!
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> > Sri
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> > On 4/13/18, 1:35 PM, "Arashmid Akhavain"
> 
> > <arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com>
> 
> > wrote:
> 
> >
> 
> > >Hi Sri,
> 
> > >Thank you for getting back to us. They listed a few dates there. The
> 
> > >final deadline is I guess July 2018.
> 
> > >Are we targeting anything earlier?
> 
> > >
> 
> > >Arashmid
> 
> > >
> 
> > >> -Original Message-
> 
> > >> From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) [mailto:sgund...@cisco.com]
> 
> > >> Sent: 13 April 2018 12:47
> 
> > >> To: Arashmid Akha

Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User Plane Protocol in 5GC"

[Arashmid Akhavain]

Hi Sri,
Thank you for clarification. I never suggested that IETF should single out a 
particular proposal. On the contrary, I believe DMM should simply conduct the 
study and provide 3GPP with all different options. 3GPP will decide what to do 
with the proposals from that point on. As you mentioned there could be several 
back and forth between the two SDOs. 

So, while I agree with all points, I am still puzzled by the following 
statement in 3GPP email. 
What is the significance of the July 2018 date? 

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

Arashmid

> -Original Message-
> From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) [mailto:sgund...@cisco.com]
> Sent: 13 April 2018 19:06
> To: Arashmid Akhavain <arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com>; dmm@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User
> Plane Protocol in 5GC"
> 
> Hi Arashmid,
> 
> 
> I am not seeing a relation to the LS Response and the July 2018 deadline that
> you are referring to. I think there is some disconnect here. Lets review what
> we the chairs are thinking.
> 
> 
> 1. The work in IETF related to User-Plane optimizations will continue for many
> months. When there is a LS Request, we will send a LS response. We will use
> LS query/response as a means to gather feedback from the SDO community,
> and provide an update on the status of all the documents in DMM at this
> time. The status includes update on WG documents and individual I-D’s under
> discussions.
> 
> 2. We are not going with the assumption that there will only be a single LS
> request/response for this entire UP Study, but we will keep exchanging
> information based on the progress, and whenever we need additional
> clarifications.
> 
> 3. There are multiple proposals in IETF. As we have indicated in the past, we
> are not going to recommend THE single solution and put it on a platter for
> 3GPP consumption, but rather the focus will be on characterization of each
> approach that we take up in DMM WG.
> 
> Now, keeping this in mind, if there is a good reason not to send the LS
> Response now, delay it by some time, or if we believe there is nothing to
> respond, we can discuss and decide to do just that. Hope this makes sense.
> 
> Bottomline, all feedback is welcome!
> 
> 
> Sri
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/13/18, 1:35 PM, "Arashmid Akhavain"
> <arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >Hi Sri,
> >Thank you for getting back to us. They listed a few dates there. The
> >final deadline is I guess July 2018.
> >Are we targeting anything earlier?
> >
> >Arashmid
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) [mailto:sgund...@cisco.com]
> >> Sent: 13 April 2018 12:47
> >> To: Arashmid Akhavain <arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com>; dmm@ietf.org
> >> Subject: Re: New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on
> >> User Plane Protocol in 5GC"
> >>
> >> Hi Arashmid,
> >>
> >> We provide the status of the related work items in DMM, and seek any
> >>clarifications on their CT4 work. Key thing from our point of view is
> >>to get  their feedback on the work we are doing and try to meet their
> >>timelines.
> >>
> >> Sri
> >>
> >>
> >> On 4/12/18, 10:53 AM, "Arashmid Akhavain"
> >> <arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Hi Sri,
> >> >
> >> >Any idea what the plan is once we pass this information to CT4?
> >> >
> >> >Arashmid
> >> >
> >> >> -Original Message-
> >> >> From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sri
> >> >> Gundavelli
> >> >> (sgundave)
> >> >> Sent: 12 April 2018 12:47
> >> >> To: dmm@ietf.org
> >> >> Subject: Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study
> >> >> Item on User Plane Protocol in 5GC"
> >> >>
> >> >> Please review and post your comments. Chairs will draft a response
> >> >>for WG  review.
> >> >>
> >> >> Sri
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On 4/11/18, 11:16 AM, "Liaison Statement Management Tool"
> >> >> <l...@ietf.org>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Title: CP-173160: New Study Item on User Plane Protocol in 5GC
> >> >> >Submission Date: 2018-04-11 URL 

Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User Plane Protocol in 5GC"

[Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)]

Kalyani - Sure; Ack!

Sri


On 4/14/18, 7:59 AM, "Bogineni, Kalyani"
<kalyani.bogin...@verizonwireless.com> wrote:

>Sri:
>
>Providing information on the various protocols options in IETF in a
>comprehensive way will be useful not only to
>3GPP but also to ETSI/ITU which is also working on NG protocols as
>pointed out by some folks at IETF #101. Each SDO
>can make use of that information as needed.
>
>Kalyani
>
>-Original Message-
>From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli
>(sgundave)
>Sent: Friday, April 13, 2018 7:06 PM
>To: Arashmid Akhavain <arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com>; dmm@ietf.org
>Subject: [E] Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item
>on User Plane Protocol in 5GC"
>
>Hi Arashmid,
>
>
>
>
>
>I am not seeing a relation to the LS Response and the July 2018 deadline
>
>that you are referring to. I think there is some disconnect here. Lets
>
>review what we the chairs are thinking.
>
>
>
>
>
>1. The work in IETF related to User-Plane optimizations will continue for
>
>many months. When there is a LS Request, we will send a LS response. We
>
>will use LS query/response as a means to gather feedback from the SDO
>
>community, and provide an update on the status of all the documents in DMM
>
>at this time. The status includes update on WG documents and individual
>
>I-D’s under discussions.
>
>
>
>2. We are not going with the assumption that there will only be a single
>
>LS request/response for this entire UP Study, but we will keep exchanging
>
>information based on the progress, and whenever we need additional
>
>clarifications. 
>
>
>
>3. There are multiple proposals in IETF. As we have indicated in the past,
>
>we are not going to recommend THE single solution and put it on a platter
>
>for 3GPP consumption, but rather the focus will be on characterization of
>
>each approach that we take up in DMM WG.
>
>
>
>Now, keeping this in mind, if there is a good reason not to send the LS
>
>Response now, delay it by some time, or if we believe there is nothing to
>
>respond, we can discuss and decide to do just that. Hope this makes sense.
>
>
>
>Bottomline, all feedback is welcome!
>
>
>
>
>
>Sri 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On 4/13/18, 1:35 PM, "Arashmid Akhavain" <arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com>
>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>Hi Sri,
>
>>Thank you for getting back to us. They listed a few dates there. The
>
>>final deadline is I guess July 2018.
>
>>Are we targeting anything earlier?
>
>>
>
>>Arashmid 
>
>>
>
>>> -Original Message-
>
>>> From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) [mailto:sgund...@cisco.com]
>
>>> Sent: 13 April 2018 12:47
>
>>> To: Arashmid Akhavain <arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com>; dmm@ietf.org
>
>>> Subject: Re: New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User
>
>>> Plane Protocol in 5GC"
>
>>> 
>
>>> Hi Arashmid,
>
>>> 
>
>>> We provide the status of the related work items in DMM, and seek any
>
>>> clarifications on their CT4 work. Key thing from our point of view is
>
>>>to get
>
>>> their feedback on the work we are doing and try to meet their
>>>timelines.
>
>>> 
>
>>> Sri
>
>>> 
>
>>> 
>
>>> On 4/12/18, 10:53 AM, "Arashmid Akhavain"
>
>>> <arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com>
>
>>> wrote:
>
>>> 
>
>>> >Hi Sri,
>
>>> >
>
>>> >Any idea what the plan is once we pass this information to CT4?
>
>>> >
>
>>> >Arashmid
>
>>> >
>
>>> >> -Original Message-
>
>>> >> From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli
>
>>> >> (sgundave)
>
>>> >> Sent: 12 April 2018 12:47
>
>>> >> To: dmm@ietf.org
>
>>> >> Subject: Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item
>
>>> >> on User Plane Protocol in 5GC"
>
>>> >>
>
>>> >> Please review and post your comments. Chairs will draft a response
>
>>> >>for WG  review.
>
>>> >>
>
>>> >> Sri
>
>>> >>
>
>>> >>
>
>>> >> On 4/11/18, 11:16 AM, "Liaison Statement Management Tool"
>
>>> >> <l...@ietf

Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User Plane Protocol in 5GC"

[Bogineni, Kalyani]

Sri:

Providing information on the various protocols options in IETF in a 
comprehensive way will be useful not only to
3GPP but also to ETSI/ITU which is also working on NG protocols as pointed out 
by some folks at IETF #101. Each SDO
can make use of that information as needed.

Kalyani

-Original Message-
From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2018 7:06 PM
To: Arashmid Akhavain <arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com>; dmm@ietf.org
Subject: [E] Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on 
User Plane Protocol in 5GC"

Hi Arashmid,





I am not seeing a relation to the LS Response and the July 2018 deadline

that you are referring to. I think there is some disconnect here. Lets

review what we the chairs are thinking.





1. The work in IETF related to User-Plane optimizations will continue for

many months. When there is a LS Request, we will send a LS response. We

will use LS query/response as a means to gather feedback from the SDO

community, and provide an update on the status of all the documents in DMM

at this time. The status includes update on WG documents and individual

I-D’s under discussions.



2. We are not going with the assumption that there will only be a single

LS request/response for this entire UP Study, but we will keep exchanging

information based on the progress, and whenever we need additional

clarifications. 



3. There are multiple proposals in IETF. As we have indicated in the past,

we are not going to recommend THE single solution and put it on a platter

for 3GPP consumption, but rather the focus will be on characterization of

each approach that we take up in DMM WG.



Now, keeping this in mind, if there is a good reason not to send the LS

Response now, delay it by some time, or if we believe there is nothing to

respond, we can discuss and decide to do just that. Hope this makes sense.



Bottomline, all feedback is welcome!





Sri 









On 4/13/18, 1:35 PM, "Arashmid Akhavain" <arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com>

wrote:



>Hi Sri,

>Thank you for getting back to us. They listed a few dates there. The

>final deadline is I guess July 2018.

>Are we targeting anything earlier?

>

>Arashmid 

>

>> -Original Message-

>> From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) [mailto:sgund...@cisco.com]

>> Sent: 13 April 2018 12:47

>> To: Arashmid Akhavain <arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com>; dmm@ietf.org

>> Subject: Re: New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User

>> Plane Protocol in 5GC"

>> 

>> Hi Arashmid,

>> 

>> We provide the status of the related work items in DMM, and seek any

>> clarifications on their CT4 work. Key thing from our point of view is

>>to get

>> their feedback on the work we are doing and try to meet their timelines.

>> 

>> Sri

>> 

>> 

>> On 4/12/18, 10:53 AM, "Arashmid Akhavain"

>> <arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com>

>> wrote:

>> 

>> >Hi Sri,

>> >

>> >Any idea what the plan is once we pass this information to CT4?

>> >

>> >Arashmid

>> >

>> >> -Original Message-

>> >> From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli

>> >> (sgundave)

>> >> Sent: 12 April 2018 12:47

>> >> To: dmm@ietf.org

>> >> Subject: Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item

>> >> on User Plane Protocol in 5GC"

>> >>

>> >> Please review and post your comments. Chairs will draft a response

>> >>for WG  review.

>> >>

>> >> Sri

>> >>

>> >>

>> >> On 4/11/18, 11:16 AM, "Liaison Statement Management Tool"

>> >> <l...@ietf.org>

>> >> wrote:

>> >>

>> >> >Title: CP-173160: New Study Item on User Plane Protocol in 5GC

>> >> >Submission Date: 2018-04-11 URL of the IETF Web page:

>> >> >https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_liaison_1572_=DwIGaQ=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ=IdiSODh8aDRjdCeGgd9MznLHMYKgKcs_YSwXBDiaofh47oilzaXYRYETcBynUdpT=HzWn613RHnz3I2LqLeSynqPwGlz9DKPBbb8gsskSANw=9CURIbNAYuWQYF-7wjuFSRJTLB5XX_6f8C3FJHODsRA=

>> >> >Please reply by 2018-07-20

>> >> >From: Satoru Matsushima <satoru.matsush...@g.softbank.co.jp>

>> >> >To: Sri Gundavelli <sgund...@cisco.com>,Dapeng Liu

>> >> ><maxpass...@gmail.com>

>> >> >Cc: Dapeng Liu <maxpass...@gmail.com>,Terry Manderson

>> >> ><terry.mander...@icann.org>,Distri

Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User Plane Protocol in 5GC"

[Uma Chunduri]

> Now, keeping this in mind, if there is a good reason not to send the LS 
> Response now, delay it by some time, or if we believe there is nothing to 
> respond, we can discuss and decide to do just that. Hope this makes sense.

+1

--
Uma C.

-Original Message-
From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2018 4:06 PM
To: Arashmid Akhavain <arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com>; dmm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User 
Plane Protocol in 5GC"

Hi Arashmid,


I am not seeing a relation to the LS Response and the July 2018 deadline that 
you are referring to. I think there is some disconnect here. Lets review what 
we the chairs are thinking.


1. The work in IETF related to User-Plane optimizations will continue for many 
months. When there is a LS Request, we will send a LS response. We will use LS 
query/response as a means to gather feedback from the SDO community, and 
provide an update on the status of all the documents in DMM at this time. The 
status includes update on WG documents and individual I-D’s under discussions.

2. We are not going with the assumption that there will only be a single LS 
request/response for this entire UP Study, but we will keep exchanging 
information based on the progress, and whenever we need additional 
clarifications. 

3. There are multiple proposals in IETF. As we have indicated in the past, we 
are not going to recommend THE single solution and put it on a platter for 3GPP 
consumption, but rather the focus will be on characterization of each approach 
that we take up in DMM WG.

Now, keeping this in mind, if there is a good reason not to send the LS 
Response now, delay it by some time, or if we believe there is nothing to 
respond, we can discuss and decide to do just that. Hope this makes sense.

Bottomline, all feedback is welcome!


Sri 




On 4/13/18, 1:35 PM, "Arashmid Akhavain" <arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com>
wrote:

>Hi Sri,
>Thank you for getting back to us. They listed a few dates there. The 
>final deadline is I guess July 2018.
>Are we targeting anything earlier?
>
>Arashmid
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) [mailto:sgund...@cisco.com]
>> Sent: 13 April 2018 12:47
>> To: Arashmid Akhavain <arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com>; dmm@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on 
>> User Plane Protocol in 5GC"
>> 
>> Hi Arashmid,
>> 
>> We provide the status of the related work items in DMM, and seek any  
>>clarifications on their CT4 work. Key thing from our point of view is 
>>to get  their feedback on the work we are doing and try to meet their 
>>timelines.
>> 
>> Sri
>> 
>> 
>> On 4/12/18, 10:53 AM, "Arashmid Akhavain"
>> <arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> >Hi Sri,
>> >
>> >Any idea what the plan is once we pass this information to CT4?
>> >
>> >Arashmid
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-
>> >> From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sri 
>> >> Gundavelli
>> >> (sgundave)
>> >> Sent: 12 April 2018 12:47
>> >> To: dmm@ietf.org
>> >> Subject: Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study 
>> >> Item on User Plane Protocol in 5GC"
>> >>
>> >> Please review and post your comments. Chairs will draft a response 
>> >>for WG  review.
>> >>
>> >> Sri
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 4/11/18, 11:16 AM, "Liaison Statement Management Tool"
>> >> <l...@ietf.org>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Title: CP-173160: New Study Item on User Plane Protocol in 5GC 
>> >> >Submission Date: 2018-04-11 URL of the IETF Web page:
>> >> >https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1572/
>> >> >Please reply by 2018-07-20
>> >> >From: Satoru Matsushima <satoru.matsush...@g.softbank.co.jp>
>> >> >To: Sri Gundavelli <sgund...@cisco.com>,Dapeng Liu 
>> >> ><maxpass...@gmail.com>
>> >> >Cc: Dapeng Liu <maxpass...@gmail.com>,Terry Manderson 
>> >> ><terry.mander...@icann.org>,Distributed Mobility Management 
>> >> >Discussion List <dmm@ietf.org>,Sri Gundavelli 
>> >> ><sgund...@cisco.com>,Suresh Krishnan <sur...@kaloom.com> Response
>> Contacts:
>> >> >georg.mayer.hua...@gmx.com,3gppliai...@etsi.org
>> >> >Technical Contacts:
>> >&

Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User Plane Protocol in 5GC"

[Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)]

Hi Arashmid,


I am not seeing a relation to the LS Response and the July 2018 deadline
that you are referring to. I think there is some disconnect here. Lets
review what we the chairs are thinking.


1. The work in IETF related to User-Plane optimizations will continue for
many months. When there is a LS Request, we will send a LS response. We
will use LS query/response as a means to gather feedback from the SDO
community, and provide an update on the status of all the documents in DMM
at this time. The status includes update on WG documents and individual
I-D’s under discussions.

2. We are not going with the assumption that there will only be a single
LS request/response for this entire UP Study, but we will keep exchanging
information based on the progress, and whenever we need additional
clarifications. 

3. There are multiple proposals in IETF. As we have indicated in the past,
we are not going to recommend THE single solution and put it on a platter
for 3GPP consumption, but rather the focus will be on characterization of
each approach that we take up in DMM WG.

Now, keeping this in mind, if there is a good reason not to send the LS
Response now, delay it by some time, or if we believe there is nothing to
respond, we can discuss and decide to do just that. Hope this makes sense.

Bottomline, all feedback is welcome!


Sri 




On 4/13/18, 1:35 PM, "Arashmid Akhavain" <arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com>
wrote:

>Hi Sri,
>Thank you for getting back to us. They listed a few dates there. The
>final deadline is I guess July 2018.
>Are we targeting anything earlier?
>
>Arashmid 
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) [mailto:sgund...@cisco.com]
>> Sent: 13 April 2018 12:47
>> To: Arashmid Akhavain <arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com>; dmm@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User
>> Plane Protocol in 5GC"
>> 
>> Hi Arashmid,
>> 
>> We provide the status of the related work items in DMM, and seek any
>> clarifications on their CT4 work. Key thing from our point of view is
>>to get
>> their feedback on the work we are doing and try to meet their timelines.
>> 
>> Sri
>> 
>> 
>> On 4/12/18, 10:53 AM, "Arashmid Akhavain"
>> <arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> >Hi Sri,
>> >
>> >Any idea what the plan is once we pass this information to CT4?
>> >
>> >Arashmid
>> >
>> >> -Original Message-
>> >> From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli
>> >> (sgundave)
>> >> Sent: 12 April 2018 12:47
>> >> To: dmm@ietf.org
>> >> Subject: Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item
>> >> on User Plane Protocol in 5GC"
>> >>
>> >> Please review and post your comments. Chairs will draft a response
>> >>for WG  review.
>> >>
>> >> Sri
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 4/11/18, 11:16 AM, "Liaison Statement Management Tool"
>> >> <l...@ietf.org>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Title: CP-173160: New Study Item on User Plane Protocol in 5GC
>> >> >Submission Date: 2018-04-11 URL of the IETF Web page:
>> >> >https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1572/
>> >> >Please reply by 2018-07-20
>> >> >From: Satoru Matsushima <satoru.matsush...@g.softbank.co.jp>
>> >> >To: Sri Gundavelli <sgund...@cisco.com>,Dapeng Liu
>> >> ><maxpass...@gmail.com>
>> >> >Cc: Dapeng Liu <maxpass...@gmail.com>,Terry Manderson
>> >> ><terry.mander...@icann.org>,Distributed Mobility Management
>> >> >Discussion List <dmm@ietf.org>,Sri Gundavelli
>> >> ><sgund...@cisco.com>,Suresh Krishnan <sur...@kaloom.com> Response
>> Contacts:
>> >> >georg.mayer.hua...@gmx.com,3gppliai...@etsi.org
>> >> >Technical Contacts:
>> >> >Purpose: For action
>> >> >
>> >> >Body: 1. Overall Description:
>> >> >3GPP working group of CT4 (Core and Terminal) would like to inform
>> >> >the IETF that CT4 has initiated a study item on user plane protocol
>> >> >in 5GC for Release-16 of 5G phase 2 (see CP-173160).
>> >> >
>> >> >Based on the outcome from the IETF / 3GPP Coordination meeting at
>> >> >IETF#100, 3GPP CT4 got aware that IETF DMM WG is currently working
>> >> >on a possible candidate protocol for the 3GPP 5G 

Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User Plane Protocol in 5GC"

[Arashmid Akhavain]

Hi Sri,
Thank you for getting back to us. They listed a few dates there. The final 
deadline is I guess July 2018. 
Are we targeting anything earlier?

Arashmid 

> -Original Message-
> From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) [mailto:sgund...@cisco.com]
> Sent: 13 April 2018 12:47
> To: Arashmid Akhavain <arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com>; dmm@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User
> Plane Protocol in 5GC"
> 
> Hi Arashmid,
> 
> We provide the status of the related work items in DMM, and seek any
> clarifications on their CT4 work. Key thing from our point of view is to get
> their feedback on the work we are doing and try to meet their timelines.
> 
> Sri
> 
> 
> On 4/12/18, 10:53 AM, "Arashmid Akhavain"
> <arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >Hi Sri,
> >
> >Any idea what the plan is once we pass this information to CT4?
> >
> >Arashmid
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli
> >> (sgundave)
> >> Sent: 12 April 2018 12:47
> >> To: dmm@ietf.org
> >> Subject: Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item
> >> on User Plane Protocol in 5GC"
> >>
> >> Please review and post your comments. Chairs will draft a response
> >>for WG  review.
> >>
> >> Sri
> >>
> >>
> >> On 4/11/18, 11:16 AM, "Liaison Statement Management Tool"
> >> <l...@ietf.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Title: CP-173160: New Study Item on User Plane Protocol in 5GC
> >> >Submission Date: 2018-04-11 URL of the IETF Web page:
> >> >https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1572/
> >> >Please reply by 2018-07-20
> >> >From: Satoru Matsushima <satoru.matsush...@g.softbank.co.jp>
> >> >To: Sri Gundavelli <sgund...@cisco.com>,Dapeng Liu
> >> ><maxpass...@gmail.com>
> >> >Cc: Dapeng Liu <maxpass...@gmail.com>,Terry Manderson
> >> ><terry.mander...@icann.org>,Distributed Mobility Management
> >> >Discussion List <dmm@ietf.org>,Sri Gundavelli
> >> ><sgund...@cisco.com>,Suresh Krishnan <sur...@kaloom.com> Response
> Contacts:
> >> >georg.mayer.hua...@gmx.com,3gppliai...@etsi.org
> >> >Technical Contacts:
> >> >Purpose: For action
> >> >
> >> >Body: 1. Overall Description:
> >> >3GPP working group of CT4 (Core and Terminal) would like to inform
> >> >the IETF that CT4 has initiated a study item on user plane protocol
> >> >in 5GC for Release-16 of 5G phase 2 (see CP-173160).
> >> >
> >> >Based on the outcome from the IETF / 3GPP Coordination meeting at
> >> >IETF#100, 3GPP CT4 got aware that IETF DMM WG is currently working
> >> >on a possible candidate protocol for the 3GPP 5G user plane protocol.
> >> >
> >> >3GPP CT4 wants to emphasize that currently there is no related
> >> >evaluation ongoing in 3GPP. Nevertheless, a study item was approved
> >> >for such a study to start in the second half of 2018. The study will
> >> >evaluate between existing solutions within 3GPP and other protocols,
> >> >based on the Release
> >> >16 stage 2 (system architecture) requirements.
> >> >
> >> >3GPP CT4 would like to point IETF DMM to the following
> >> >specifications on GTP-U. The Release 16 stage 2 requirements are not
> >> >yet known but it is worth looking at latest GTP-U spec which will be
> >> >evaluated through the study as the existing protocol.
> >> >
> >> >€ [1] 3GPP TS 29.281 (V15.1.0): GPRS Tunnelling Protocol User Plane
> >> >(GTPv1-U)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Following technical report provides information of how 3GPP
> >> >considered GTP-U apply to user plane of 5G_ph1:
> >> >
> >> >€ [2] 3GPP TR 29.891 (V15.0.0): 5G System ­ Phase 1; CT4 Aspects
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Furthermore, 3GPP would like to give the following general guidance
> >> >to IETF DMM, regarding user plane transport within 3GPP networks.
> >> >These are technical specifications that include also the necessary
> >> >information to understand which architectural, QoS, security-related
> >> >and high-level requirements GTP-U currently complies to within 5G_ph1.
> >> >
> >> >€ [3] 3GPP 

Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User Plane Protocol in 5GC"

[Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)]

Hi Kalyani,

The response to the LS will not be specific to any one document, but more
an update on the DMM activities. It will certainly include status of all
working documents and individual I-D’s under consideration.
 
We were thinking of sending the LS response in the next couple of weeks.

Regards
Sri

On 4/12/18, 4:33 PM, "Bogineni, Kalyani"
<kalyani.bogin...@verizonwireless.com> wrote:

>Sri:
>
>When do you intend to send the response back? The next CT4 meeting is
>21st ­ 25th May 2018.
>We could send a version of the document
>draft-bogineni-dmm-optimized-mobile-user-plane
>and see if CT4 has comments. We are working on a revision of the document
>based on the 
>comments/feedback received at IETF #101.
>
>Kalyani
>
>-Original Message-
>From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli
>(sgundave)
>Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2018 12:47 PM
>To: dmm@ietf.org
>Subject: [E] Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item
>on User Plane Protocol in 5GC"
>
>Please review and post your comments. Chairs will draft a response for WG
>review.
>
>Sri
>
>
>On 4/11/18, 11:16 AM, "Liaison Statement Management Tool" <l...@ietf.org>
>wrote:
>
>>Title: CP-173160: New Study Item on User Plane Protocol in 5GC
>>Submission Date: 2018-04-11 URL of the IETF Web page:
>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.o
>>rg_liaison_1572_=DwIF-g=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ
>>=IdiSODh8aDRjdCeGgd9MznLHMYKgKcs_YSwXBDiaofh47oilzaXYRYETcBynUdpT=4
>>DlJ00EUx2xtO4XafGCV4RwsBOCR_MV1E2kq0tzFyVA=Dx8oaGf7w9gVoXKLOaqcERnUCO
>>uTA5p11KN5X7gM16U=
>>Please reply by 2018-07-20
>>From: Satoru Matsushima <satoru.matsush...@g.softbank.co.jp>
>>To: Sri Gundavelli <sgund...@cisco.com>,Dapeng Liu
>><maxpass...@gmail.com>
>>Cc: Dapeng Liu <maxpass...@gmail.com>,Terry Manderson
>><terry.mander...@icann.org>,Distributed Mobility Management Discussion
>>List <dmm@ietf.org>,Sri Gundavelli <sgund...@cisco.com>,Suresh Krishnan
>><sur...@kaloom.com> Response Contacts:
>>georg.mayer.hua...@gmx.com,3gppliai...@etsi.org
>>Technical Contacts:
>>Purpose: For action
>>
>>Body: 1. Overall Description:
>>3GPP working group of CT4 (Core and Terminal) would like to inform the
>>IETF that CT4 has initiated a study item on user plane protocol in 5GC
>>for Release-16 of 5G phase 2 (see CP-173160).
>>
>>Based on the outcome from the IETF / 3GPP Coordination meeting at
>>IETF#100, 3GPP CT4 got aware that IETF DMM WG is currently working on a
>>possible candidate protocol for the 3GPP 5G user plane protocol.
>>
>>3GPP CT4 wants to emphasize that currently there is no related
>>evaluation ongoing in 3GPP. Nevertheless, a study item was approved for
>>such a study to start in the second half of 2018. The study will
>>evaluate between existing solutions within 3GPP and other protocols,
>>based on the Release
>>16 stage 2 (system architecture) requirements.
>>
>>3GPP CT4 would like to point IETF DMM to the following specifications
>>on GTP-U. The Release 16 stage 2 requirements are not yet known but it
>>is worth looking at latest GTP-U spec which will be evaluated through
>>the study as the existing protocol.
>>
>>€ [1] 3GPP TS 29.281 (V15.1.0): GPRS Tunnelling Protocol User Plane
>>(GTPv1-U)
>>
>>
>>Following technical report provides information of how 3GPP considered
>>GTP-U apply to user plane of 5G_ph1:
>>
>>€ [2] 3GPP TR 29.891 (V15.0.0): 5G System ­ Phase 1; CT4 Aspects
>>
>>
>>Furthermore, 3GPP would like to give the following general guidance to
>>IETF DMM, regarding user plane transport within 3GPP networks. These
>>are technical specifications that include also the necessary
>>information to understand which architectural, QoS, security-related
>>and high-level requirements GTP-U currently complies to within 5G_ph1.
>>
>>€ [3] 3GPP TS 23.501 (V15.0.0): System Architecture for the 5G System
>>€ [4] 3GPP TS 23.502 (V15.0.0): Procedures for the 5G System
>>€ [5] 3GPP TS 23.503 (V15.0.0): Policy and Charging Framework for the 5G
>>System
>>€ [6] 3GPP TS 33.501 (V0.6.0): Security Architecture (work in progress)
>>
>>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.
>>
>>
>>3. Date of Next CT and CT4 Meetings:
>>CT4#8326th Feb ­ 2nd Mar 2018 Montreal, CAN
&g

Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User Plane Protocol in 5GC"

[Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)]

Hi Arashmid,

We provide the status of the related work items in DMM, and seek any
clarifications on their CT4 work. Key thing from our point of view is to
get their feedback on the work we are doing and try to meet their
timelines.

Sri


On 4/12/18, 10:53 AM, "Arashmid Akhavain" <arashmid.akhav...@huawei.com>
wrote:

>Hi Sri,
>
>Any idea what the plan is once we pass this information to CT4?
>
>Arashmid
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli
>> (sgundave)
>> Sent: 12 April 2018 12:47
>> To: dmm@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on
>> User Plane Protocol in 5GC"
>> 
>> Please review and post your comments. Chairs will draft a response for
>>WG
>> review.
>> 
>> Sri
>> 
>> 
>> On 4/11/18, 11:16 AM, "Liaison Statement Management Tool"
>> <l...@ietf.org>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> >Title: CP-173160: New Study Item on User Plane Protocol in 5GC
>> >Submission Date: 2018-04-11 URL of the IETF Web page:
>> >https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1572/
>> >Please reply by 2018-07-20
>> >From: Satoru Matsushima <satoru.matsush...@g.softbank.co.jp>
>> >To: Sri Gundavelli <sgund...@cisco.com>,Dapeng Liu
>> ><maxpass...@gmail.com>
>> >Cc: Dapeng Liu <maxpass...@gmail.com>,Terry Manderson
>> ><terry.mander...@icann.org>,Distributed Mobility Management Discussion
>> >List <dmm@ietf.org>,Sri Gundavelli <sgund...@cisco.com>,Suresh Krishnan
>> ><sur...@kaloom.com> Response Contacts:
>> >georg.mayer.hua...@gmx.com,3gppliai...@etsi.org
>> >Technical Contacts:
>> >Purpose: For action
>> >
>> >Body: 1. Overall Description:
>> >3GPP working group of CT4 (Core and Terminal) would like to inform the
>> >IETF that CT4 has initiated a study item on user plane protocol in 5GC
>> >for Release-16 of 5G phase 2 (see CP-173160).
>> >
>> >Based on the outcome from the IETF / 3GPP Coordination meeting at
>> >IETF#100, 3GPP CT4 got aware that IETF DMM WG is currently working on a
>> >possible candidate protocol for the 3GPP 5G user plane protocol.
>> >
>> >3GPP CT4 wants to emphasize that currently there is no related
>> >evaluation ongoing in 3GPP. Nevertheless, a study item was approved for
>> >such a study to start in the second half of 2018. The study will
>> >evaluate between existing solutions within 3GPP and other protocols,
>> >based on the Release
>> >16 stage 2 (system architecture) requirements.
>> >
>> >3GPP CT4 would like to point IETF DMM to the following specifications
>> >on GTP-U. The Release 16 stage 2 requirements are not yet known but it
>> >is worth looking at latest GTP-U spec which will be evaluated through
>> >the study as the existing protocol.
>> >
>> >€   [1] 3GPP TS 29.281 (V15.1.0): GPRS Tunnelling Protocol User Plane
>> >(GTPv1-U)
>> >
>> >
>> >Following technical report provides information of how 3GPP considered
>> >GTP-U apply to user plane of 5G_ph1:
>> >
>> >€   [2] 3GPP TR 29.891 (V15.0.0): 5G System ­ Phase 1; CT4 Aspects
>> >
>> >
>> >Furthermore, 3GPP would like to give the following general guidance to
>> >IETF DMM, regarding user plane transport within 3GPP networks. These
>> >are technical specifications that include also the necessary
>> >information to understand which architectural, QoS, security-related
>> >and high-level requirements GTP-U currently complies to within 5G_ph1.
>> >
>> >€   [3] 3GPP TS 23.501 (V15.0.0): System Architecture for the 5G System
>> >€   [4] 3GPP TS 23.502 (V15.0.0): Procedures for the 5G System
>> >€   [5] 3GPP TS 23.503 (V15.0.0): Policy and Charging Framework for the
>> 5G
>> >System
>> >€   [6] 3GPP TS 33.501 (V0.6.0): Security Architecture (work in progress)
>> >
>> >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.
>> >
>> >
>> >3. Date of Next CT and CT4 Meetings:
>> >CT4#83  26th Feb ­ 2nd Mar 2018 Montreal, CAN
>> >CT#79   19th ­ 20th Mar 2018Chennai, India
>> >CT4#84  16th ­ 20th April 2018  Kunming, China
>> >CT4#85  21st ­ 25th May 2018Osaka, Japan
>> >CT#80   11th ­ 12th June 2018   La Jolla, USA
>> >CT4#85-bis9th ­13th July 2018   TBD, France
>> >CT4#86  20st ­ 24th Aug 2018TBD, USA
>> >Attachments:
>> >
>> >CP-180116
>> >
>> >https://www.ietf.org/lib/dt/documents/LIAISON/liaison-2018-04-11-3gpp-t
>> >sgc
>> >t-ct4-dmm-cp-173160-new-study-item-on-user-plane-protocol-in-5gc-attach
>> >men
>> >t-1.doc
>> >
>> 
>> ___
>> 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] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User Plane Protocol in 5GC"

[Bogineni, Kalyani]

Sri:

When do you intend to send the response back? The next CT4 meeting is 21st ­ 
25th May 2018.
We could send a version of the document 
draft-bogineni-dmm-optimized-mobile-user-plane 
and see if CT4 has comments. We are working on a revision of the document based 
on the 
comments/feedback received at IETF #101. 

Kalyani

-Original Message-
From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2018 12:47 PM
To: dmm@ietf.org
Subject: [E] Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on 
User Plane Protocol in 5GC"

Please review and post your comments. Chairs will draft a response for WG 
review.

Sri


On 4/11/18, 11:16 AM, "Liaison Statement Management Tool" <l...@ietf.org>
wrote:

>Title: CP-173160: New Study Item on User Plane Protocol in 5GC 
>Submission Date: 2018-04-11 URL of the IETF Web page: 
>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.o
>rg_liaison_1572_=DwIF-g=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ
>=IdiSODh8aDRjdCeGgd9MznLHMYKgKcs_YSwXBDiaofh47oilzaXYRYETcBynUdpT=4
>DlJ00EUx2xtO4XafGCV4RwsBOCR_MV1E2kq0tzFyVA=Dx8oaGf7w9gVoXKLOaqcERnUCO
>uTA5p11KN5X7gM16U=
>Please reply by 2018-07-20
>From: Satoru Matsushima <satoru.matsush...@g.softbank.co.jp>
>To: Sri Gundavelli <sgund...@cisco.com>,Dapeng Liu 
><maxpass...@gmail.com>
>Cc: Dapeng Liu <maxpass...@gmail.com>,Terry Manderson 
><terry.mander...@icann.org>,Distributed Mobility Management Discussion 
>List <dmm@ietf.org>,Sri Gundavelli <sgund...@cisco.com>,Suresh Krishnan 
><sur...@kaloom.com> Response Contacts: 
>georg.mayer.hua...@gmx.com,3gppliai...@etsi.org
>Technical Contacts:
>Purpose: For action
>
>Body: 1. Overall Description:
>3GPP working group of CT4 (Core and Terminal) would like to inform the 
>IETF that CT4 has initiated a study item on user plane protocol in 5GC 
>for Release-16 of 5G phase 2 (see CP-173160).
>
>Based on the outcome from the IETF / 3GPP Coordination meeting at 
>IETF#100, 3GPP CT4 got aware that IETF DMM WG is currently working on a 
>possible candidate protocol for the 3GPP 5G user plane protocol.
>
>3GPP CT4 wants to emphasize that currently there is no related 
>evaluation ongoing in 3GPP. Nevertheless, a study item was approved for 
>such a study to start in the second half of 2018. The study will 
>evaluate between existing solutions within 3GPP and other protocols, 
>based on the Release
>16 stage 2 (system architecture) requirements.
>
>3GPP CT4 would like to point IETF DMM to the following specifications 
>on GTP-U. The Release 16 stage 2 requirements are not yet known but it 
>is worth looking at latest GTP-U spec which will be evaluated through 
>the study as the existing protocol.
>
>€  [1] 3GPP TS 29.281 (V15.1.0): GPRS Tunnelling Protocol User Plane
>(GTPv1-U)
>
>
>Following technical report provides information of how 3GPP considered 
>GTP-U apply to user plane of 5G_ph1:
>
>€  [2] 3GPP TR 29.891 (V15.0.0): 5G System ­ Phase 1; CT4 Aspects
>
>
>Furthermore, 3GPP would like to give the following general guidance to 
>IETF DMM, regarding user plane transport within 3GPP networks. These 
>are technical specifications that include also the necessary 
>information to understand which architectural, QoS, security-related 
>and high-level requirements GTP-U currently complies to within 5G_ph1.
>
>€  [3] 3GPP TS 23.501 (V15.0.0): System Architecture for the 5G System
>€  [4] 3GPP TS 23.502 (V15.0.0): Procedures for the 5G System
>€  [5] 3GPP TS 23.503 (V15.0.0): Policy and Charging Framework for the 5G
>System
>€  [6] 3GPP TS 33.501 (V0.6.0): Security Architecture (work in progress)
>
>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.
>
>
>3. Date of Next CT and CT4 Meetings:
>CT4#83 26th Feb ­ 2nd Mar 2018 Montreal, CAN
>CT#79  19th ­ 20th Mar 2018Chennai, India
>CT4#84 16th ­ 20th April 2018  Kunming, China
>CT4#85 21st ­ 25th May 2018Osaka, Japan
>CT#80  11th ­ 12th June 2018   La Jolla, USA
>CT4#85-bis   9th ­13th July 2018   TBD, France
>CT4#86 20st ­ 24th Aug 2018TBD, USA
>Attachments:
>
>CP-180116
>
>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_lib_d
>t_documents_LIAISON_liaison-2D2018-2D04-2D11-2D3gpp-2Dtsgc=DwIF-g=u
>dBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ=IdiSODh8aDRjdCeGgd9MznLHMY
>KgKcs_YSwXBDiaofh47oilzaXYRYETcBynUdpT=4DlJ00EUx2xtO4XafGCV4RwsBOCR_M
>V1E2kq0tzFyVA=OqWwMzQ6eW0MRMWDEiwEAl3UJqJHOQB3t0zh4ouqMX8=
>t-ct4-dmm-cp-173160-new-study-item-on-user-plane-protocol-in-5gc-attach
>men
&

Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User Plane Protocol in 5GC"

[Arashmid Akhavain]

Hi Sri,

Any idea what the plan is once we pass this information to CT4? 

Arashmid

> -Original Message-
> From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli
> (sgundave)
> Sent: 12 April 2018 12:47
> To: dmm@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on
> User Plane Protocol in 5GC"
> 
> Please review and post your comments. Chairs will draft a response for WG
> review.
> 
> Sri
> 
> 
> On 4/11/18, 11:16 AM, "Liaison Statement Management Tool"
> <l...@ietf.org>
> wrote:
> 
> >Title: CP-173160: New Study Item on User Plane Protocol in 5GC
> >Submission Date: 2018-04-11 URL of the IETF Web page:
> >https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1572/
> >Please reply by 2018-07-20
> >From: Satoru Matsushima <satoru.matsush...@g.softbank.co.jp>
> >To: Sri Gundavelli <sgund...@cisco.com>,Dapeng Liu
> ><maxpass...@gmail.com>
> >Cc: Dapeng Liu <maxpass...@gmail.com>,Terry Manderson
> ><terry.mander...@icann.org>,Distributed Mobility Management Discussion
> >List <dmm@ietf.org>,Sri Gundavelli <sgund...@cisco.com>,Suresh Krishnan
> ><sur...@kaloom.com> Response Contacts:
> >georg.mayer.hua...@gmx.com,3gppliai...@etsi.org
> >Technical Contacts:
> >Purpose: For action
> >
> >Body: 1. Overall Description:
> >3GPP working group of CT4 (Core and Terminal) would like to inform the
> >IETF that CT4 has initiated a study item on user plane protocol in 5GC
> >for Release-16 of 5G phase 2 (see CP-173160).
> >
> >Based on the outcome from the IETF / 3GPP Coordination meeting at
> >IETF#100, 3GPP CT4 got aware that IETF DMM WG is currently working on a
> >possible candidate protocol for the 3GPP 5G user plane protocol.
> >
> >3GPP CT4 wants to emphasize that currently there is no related
> >evaluation ongoing in 3GPP. Nevertheless, a study item was approved for
> >such a study to start in the second half of 2018. The study will
> >evaluate between existing solutions within 3GPP and other protocols,
> >based on the Release
> >16 stage 2 (system architecture) requirements.
> >
> >3GPP CT4 would like to point IETF DMM to the following specifications
> >on GTP-U. The Release 16 stage 2 requirements are not yet known but it
> >is worth looking at latest GTP-U spec which will be evaluated through
> >the study as the existing protocol.
> >
> >€[1] 3GPP TS 29.281 (V15.1.0): GPRS Tunnelling Protocol User Plane
> >(GTPv1-U)
> >
> >
> >Following technical report provides information of how 3GPP considered
> >GTP-U apply to user plane of 5G_ph1:
> >
> >€[2] 3GPP TR 29.891 (V15.0.0): 5G System ­ Phase 1; CT4 Aspects
> >
> >
> >Furthermore, 3GPP would like to give the following general guidance to
> >IETF DMM, regarding user plane transport within 3GPP networks. These
> >are technical specifications that include also the necessary
> >information to understand which architectural, QoS, security-related
> >and high-level requirements GTP-U currently complies to within 5G_ph1.
> >
> >€[3] 3GPP TS 23.501 (V15.0.0): System Architecture for the 5G System
> >€[4] 3GPP TS 23.502 (V15.0.0): Procedures for the 5G System
> >€[5] 3GPP TS 23.503 (V15.0.0): Policy and Charging Framework for the
> 5G
> >System
> >€[6] 3GPP TS 33.501 (V0.6.0): Security Architecture (work in progress)
> >
> >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.
> >
> >
> >3. Date of Next CT and CT4 Meetings:
> >CT4#83   26th Feb ­ 2nd Mar 2018 Montreal, CAN
> >CT#7919th ­ 20th Mar 2018Chennai, India
> >CT4#84   16th ­ 20th April 2018  Kunming, China
> >CT4#85   21st ­ 25th May 2018Osaka, Japan
> >CT#8011th ­ 12th June 2018   La Jolla, USA
> >CT4#85-bis 9th ­13th July 2018   TBD, France
> >CT4#86   20st ­ 24th Aug 2018TBD, USA
> >Attachments:
> >
> >CP-180116
> >
> >https://www.ietf.org/lib/dt/documents/LIAISON/liaison-2018-04-11-3gpp-t
> >sgc
> >t-ct4-dmm-cp-173160-new-study-item-on-user-plane-protocol-in-5gc-attach
> >men
> >t-1.doc
> >
> 
> ___
> 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] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User Plane Protocol in 5GC"

[Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)]

Please review and post your comments. Chairs will draft a response for WG
review.

Sri


On 4/11/18, 11:16 AM, "Liaison Statement Management Tool" 
wrote:

>Title: CP-173160: New Study Item on User Plane Protocol in 5GC
>Submission Date: 2018-04-11
>URL of the IETF Web page: https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1572/
>Please reply by 2018-07-20
>From: Satoru Matsushima 
>To: Sri Gundavelli ,Dapeng Liu 
>Cc: Dapeng Liu ,Terry Manderson
>,Distributed Mobility Management Discussion
>List ,Sri Gundavelli ,Suresh Krishnan
>
>Response Contacts: georg.mayer.hua...@gmx.com,3gppliai...@etsi.org
>Technical Contacts:
>Purpose: For action
>
>Body: 1. Overall Description:
>3GPP working group of CT4 (Core and Terminal) would like to inform the
>IETF that CT4 has initiated a study item on user plane protocol in 5GC
>for Release-16 of 5G phase 2 (see CP-173160).
>
>Based on the outcome from the IETF / 3GPP Coordination meeting at
>IETF#100, 3GPP CT4 got aware that IETF DMM WG is currently working on a
>possible candidate protocol for the 3GPP 5G user plane protocol.
>
>3GPP CT4 wants to emphasize that currently there is no related evaluation
>ongoing in 3GPP. Nevertheless, a study item was approved for such a study
>to start in the second half of 2018. The study will evaluate between
>existing solutions within 3GPP and other protocols, based on the Release
>16 stage 2 (system architecture) requirements.
>
>3GPP CT4 would like to point IETF DMM to the following specifications on
>GTP-U. The Release 16 stage 2 requirements are not yet known but it is
>worth looking at latest GTP-U spec which will be evaluated through the
>study as the existing protocol.
>
>€  [1] 3GPP TS 29.281 (V15.1.0): GPRS Tunnelling Protocol User Plane
>(GTPv1-U)
>
>
>Following technical report provides information of how 3GPP considered
>GTP-U apply to user plane of 5G_ph1:
>
>€  [2] 3GPP TR 29.891 (V15.0.0): 5G System ­ Phase 1; CT4 Aspects
>
>
>Furthermore, 3GPP would like to give the following general guidance to
>IETF DMM, regarding user plane transport within 3GPP networks. These are
>technical specifications that include also the necessary information to
>understand which architectural, QoS, security-related and high-level
>requirements GTP-U currently complies to within 5G_ph1.
>
>€  [3] 3GPP TS 23.501 (V15.0.0): System Architecture for the 5G System
>€  [4] 3GPP TS 23.502 (V15.0.0): Procedures for the 5G System
>€  [5] 3GPP TS 23.503 (V15.0.0): Policy and Charging Framework for the 5G
>System
>€  [6] 3GPP TS 33.501 (V0.6.0): Security Architecture (work in progress)
>
>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.
>
>
>3. Date of Next CT and CT4 Meetings:
>CT4#83 26th Feb ­ 2nd Mar 2018 Montreal, CAN
>CT#79  19th ­ 20th Mar 2018Chennai, India
>CT4#84 16th ­ 20th April 2018  Kunming, China
>CT4#85 21st ­ 25th May 2018Osaka, Japan
>CT#80  11th ­ 12th June 2018   La Jolla, USA
>CT4#85-bis   9th ­13th July 2018   TBD, France
>CT4#86 20st ­ 24th Aug 2018TBD, USA
>Attachments:
>
>CP-180116
>
>https://www.ietf.org/lib/dt/documents/LIAISON/liaison-2018-04-11-3gpp-tsgc
>t-ct4-dmm-cp-173160-new-study-item-on-user-plane-protocol-in-5gc-attachmen
>t-1.doc
>

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