Re: [bcause] Inter SDO relationship considerations

[Gregory Dalle <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mach,

This is all very clear in the working text, we even added text to avoid misunderstandings (Again, if you are not clear, ask questions, don’t spread FUD on BBF).

You told Dave  “your statement is not true, there is no overlap”
You told me “CUPS protocol definition for BNG is not in the scope.
Read WT-459 (your company is a BBF member) and see that protocol specification, by reference is in scope. It does not include protocol design, but does include requirements for protocol extensions. So if you thought that BBF will steer away from looking at CUSP vs PFCP vs FORCES vs Whatever, you didn’t understand.

There would be overlap.

Greg




Juniper Internal
From: Mach Chen <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 9:14 AM
To: Gregory Dalle <[e-mail]>
Cc: David Sinicrope <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [bcause] Inter SDO relationship considerations

Hi Greg,

You are keep confusing the IETF with the terms that have different meanings in BBF.

Could you please clarify what is called protocol definition, what is call protocol design, what is called protocol specify in the context of BBF?

I remembered the word of "specify" was proposed, which result in quite a lot discussions. Because ”specify” in IETF has very clear meaning. But in BBF, the "specify" equal to "reference".

Best regards,
Mach
发件人：Gregory Dalle <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
收件人：Mach Chen <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
抄 送：David Sinicrope <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;[e-mail] <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
时间：2019-03-29 13:31:02
主 题：Re: [bcause] Inter SDO relationship considerations

Mach,

Current issue of WT-459 is posted. Have a look at the scope section. Protocol definition is in scope, protocol design is not in scope. Nothing new. Feel free to unicast me if you are still confused.

Greg


On Mar 29, 2019, at 8:04 AM, Mach Chen <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi Greg,

Let's put FMC, WT-458, aside, since it is not in the scope.

As for DBNG,WT-459, AFAIK, it just focuses on architecture, requirements, use cases. CUPS protocol definition for BNG is not in the scope.

Let's do not confuse the situation again and again.

Best regards,
Mach
发件人：Gregory Dalle <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
收件人：Mach Chen <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
抄 送：David Sinicrope <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
时间：2019-03-29 12:22:46
主 题：Re: [bcause] Inter SDO relationship considerations

Mach, it would overlap. BBF is addressing CUPS both for BNG (WT-459) and CUPS for FMC (WT-458), as described in liaisons.

Greg

On Mar 29, 2019, at 6:09 AM, Mach Chen <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
I think your statement is not true, there is no overlap
. As one of the proponents, I am sure that the CUSP is only targeting to address CMCC's fixed BNG CUPS  requirements.

Best regards,
Mach
发件人：David Sinicrope <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
收件人：[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
抄 送：[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
时间：2019-03-29 10:40:16
主 题：[bcause] Inter SDO relationship considerations

(IETF Liaison Manager to BBF hat on)

The statements on this list, especially those to the effect that CUSP work in the IETF would not exclude FMC, indicate that there is high potential (and intent?) that both the BBF and the IETF would be working on two competing solutions, i.e., two different solutions competing for the same problem.

The two organizations pursuing competing solutions creates an inherent strain on the inter SDO relationship, that to this point has been coordinated, cooperative and cordial.

Further, given the indications in the liaisons from BBF that they intend to work cooperatively with 3GPP, should they decide to pursue PFCP as a solution, would then potentially put IETF in competition with 3GPP as well.

Introducing this inter-SDO strain has potential impacts beyond this immediate bcause issue to other work between the organizations.

I would ask the participants and ADs to please consider these potential issues in your deliberations.

Thank-you,
Dave

--
bcause mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_bcause&d=DwICAg&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=VhX0NAIO1d7yQxdURKFPY59GAxttnQcfkn45tfRnREs&m=JC3Qb6i8mCuJ1qoJ8V-GimcEg54-mMyrB33kAH77u5s&s=rParcq-0T3mErgJ0LkEVsN2Re1I49f7UqUi1l9dvxnU&e=