Re: [5gangip] FW: New Version Notification for draft-xyx-5gip-ps-01.txt

Hi Cameron,

As always, you are a bit harsh on critism but we are used to that :)

My comments in line.

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:

> Folks,
>
> I remain very skeptical about the value of this group's collected
> protocols.  The scope overlaps with work in the 3GPP, contradicts work in
> the 3GPP, and the proposed ideas here are not obviously high value or fit
> for the internet or mobile networks.
>
> Don't get me wrong, i am not in love with the 3GPP and i think there is a
> lot to improve on many fronts.  But,  MAMS and LISP and ILA are not on the
> short list of approaches i would hold up the 3GPP and say this is a better
> way.
>

>   In fact, MAMS as a proxy
>

This one I'll let Satish say something.
My view is that as we clarified in Rev. 01, MAMS was originally designed
for 4G. 5G work is what we want to do in this group and your input
is welcome.

> and ILA as a NAT are exactly the legacy telco stuff i would expect the
> IETF to work against in favor of a more secure, more salable, and more
> end-to-end internet.
>
>
You are talking about proxy mode. I agree with that. But we have also ILNP
like host based mode which we want to concentrate.

> AFAIK, FMC is already solved today.  My very own iPhone can make calls on
> WiFi, LTE, and switch between the 2 -- this is all standard 3GPP work from
> IMS. When i sit outside my house with bad wifi, the UE bounces between WiFi
> and LTE endlessly, but this unstable network does not interrupt me
> streaming Youtube.  So, i just don't see a problem to be solved here,
> especially if it incurs a great deal of complexity and state and
> signalling.  That said, MIF and Happy Eyeballs both address this issue of
> performance and network selection -- and i would strongly suggest the UE is
> in the best position to determine network quality and user experience.
>
>
That is fine.

> I can't get over it this reduction: MAMs adds a proxy and ILA adds a NAT.
> I just don't think that is architecturally wise in 4G or 5G.   They just
> can't  scale in a gigabit broadband 5G usecase [which is the usecase that
> pays the bills, not the pie in the sky stuff], and don't add meaningful
> value, and simply detract value at scale.  Also, ILA and MAMs takes a lot
> of work on the UE.  Getting changes into the UE is very hard, it took 10
> years from the standardization of IMS to get functional IMS client (VoLTE)
> deployed at scale.
>
> I think we said similar things in Rev.01, the network can not trust UE.

> Finally, the 5G ship has already sailed.  Many network are "launching 5G"
> this year, and more networks (including the one i work at ) are committed
> to launching "real 5G" in the next 2 to 3 years.  None of the work in this
> group is within that 5G scope AFAIK. So, it may be most appropriate to
> carry on the effort at 6G to avoid folks getting confused.
>
>
See David Lake's comments.

> I still hold out hope for ILNP to replace the mobility core at some future
> date, the radio network just does a simple authentication and that is all.
> But, that is my own dream of a simpler world :)  I would suggest the
> standard we look for in this group is:  what can we remove from 3GPP 5G /
> 6G, not what we can add.  How does the work in this group reduce NET
> signalling and user-plane modification from the 3GPP steady state?  How is
> that quantified?
>
>
This is where we want to go provided that we don't deal much with legacy
hosts.

Regards,

Behcet

> CB
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 2:53 AM, <Dirk.von-Hugo@telekom.de> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> We have updated the PS draft on 5G IP issues regarding the planned BoF in
>> Prague.
>>
>> Please check whether we have addressed the comments correctly and
>> continue to discuss this towards further improvement.
>>
>> Thanks a lot – also on behalf of Roland, SungHoon, and Behcet
>>
>>
>>
>> Best Regards
>> Dirk
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
>> Date: Mon, May 22, 2017 at 1:22 PM
>> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-xyx-5gip-ps-01.txt
>> To: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya@ieee.org>, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>,
>> Roland Schott <roland.schott@telekom.de>, SungHoon Seo <sh.seo@kt.com>,
>> Roland Schott <Roland.Schott@telekom.de>, Dirk von Hugo <
>> dirk.von-hugo@telekom.de>, Satish Kanugovi <satish.k@nokia.com>
>>
>>
>>
>> A new version of I-D, draft-xyx-5gip-ps-01.txt
>> has been successfully submitted by Behcet Sarikaya and posted to the
>> IETF repository.
>>
>> Name:           draft-xyx-5gip-ps
>> Revision:       01
>> Title:          5G IP Access and Session Management Protocols
>> Document date:  2017-05-22
>> Group:          Individual Submission
>> Pages:          14
>> URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-
>> drafts/draft-xyx-5gip-ps-01.txt
>> Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-xyx-5gip-ps/
>> Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xyx-5gip-ps-01
>> Htmlized:       https://datatracker.ietf.org/
>> doc/html/draft-xyx-5gip-ps-01
>> Diff:           https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-xyx-5gip-ps-01
>>
>> Abstract:
>>    This document builds upon 5G IP issues work and - based on a
>>    simplified 5G system architecture - attempts to make the case for a
>>    possible set of new protocols that need to be developed to be used
>>    among various virtualized functions in a 5G network.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
>> submission
>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>>
>> The IETF Secretariat
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 5gangip mailing list
>> 5gangip@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/5gangip
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 5gangip mailing list
> 5gangip@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/5gangip
>
>