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