Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as DMM WG document

Satoru Matsushima <satoru.matsushima@gmail.com> Mon, 17 December 2018 11:07 UTC

Return-Path: <satoru.matsushima@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BBE71294D7 for <dmm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 03:07:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3nfvTKCHAjP4 for <dmm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 03:07:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf1-x432.google.com (mail-pf1-x432.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::432]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 596271286E7 for <dmm@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 03:07:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf1-x432.google.com with SMTP id c72so6201703pfc.6 for <dmm@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 03:07:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=Ijzw03PZB2h8DatfJTRRyri5Me9Q00x+ON7rjL+cnyU=; b=EFr0VRmv4Ik8alZ95sl1C3ZSUqRuU102wJsyExw6Rabn3iUPaQgXq6EJp5KY7H4FQl UM0R15562unZ34xMm+h5dqgyc+EzXJ3IzRVUsdPu2H7Lzyuo5wP9RkSFqYfeiuU+Y89j o1bvPAqwVQ4hH6ocQ9hlTMaH6wByhfhKK0Um9LbCUot7LA5vJTar3NaudTyHmMjFhLHm 7TX2zUh5BfiXNwB6Cn1csIwsjJx5l1fzYo2qPDhMVj6Phtefo931jcUlywajkvGHSVDG jcfwWtnzWeW8zbhAO1buIDF4+Ct3g2fUqb+WiOhcg51+olAFQnmA2UGIFxefxDfVUKJM 4eOw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=Ijzw03PZB2h8DatfJTRRyri5Me9Q00x+ON7rjL+cnyU=; b=MAnCqQA5V9DsSmHRnAA5OISIUgLUcCm3+Db5f+RM8q4bxGc7m5PMDOA6kplBXNWcbQ sYrc/O2xltDweziYjuNHRed8JMUqFFlqccqK8BGQkHQkEHqybn4dF16t9elPPEdECE9B b/Md5tKQwNbFe/IK9h7GHCkFn2JKJ+29CAVCMnOsCuirYPdEY2uIamEDK5+8Qxck07A8 XVNXZc+QvzTaBj4Lu58I5wnu0xLh+EieLufcnIGL7T+9TE3xyIrP0BvJVdj16aZ0EuHI U5Z+qN206G0V1uxvghwtUfhYYa0OHm/OkEAsCe0yCixziWxeOwort3xRBuZohkdYbmIl 8ryg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWbO4pzJaShmySk02KFQzY4DmKIRrxFAu89iEN6wqh5E2S+bvUj1 TS7YR4KiiPHS1X42av3G3RkhyCax
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/Wc2MAm6TEAKg4+JC9YLZC4V7ytPuIbUFO0wkd8v/ADCVzWlwdcuUL0a4aO2WB85mL/FuQ91Q==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:4c04:: with SMTP id z4mr12025088pga.312.1545044841832; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 03:07:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2400:2411:8900::55c4:e97:f38d:d131? ([2400:2411:8900:0:55c4:e97:f38d:d131]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b9sm14727345pfi.118.2018.12.17.03.07.19 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 17 Dec 2018 03:07:20 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Satoru Matsushima <satoru.matsushima@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <381BB175-A810-42B8-9EE8-8D62E7E86E83@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 20:07:17 +0900
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <7D3848E5-865B-4CA1-BE61-F6AA3C1B22F0@gmail.com>
References: <D8242158.2DFB2F%sgundave@cisco.com> <D82D483F.2E04E4%sgundave@cisco.com> <D8388995.2E0FF2%sgundave@cisco.com> <381BB175-A810-42B8-9EE8-8D62E7E86E83@gmail.com>
To: "dmm@ietf.org" <dmm@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmm/78UlYcvaghBdBmsyeeNeg2M4Goc>
Subject: Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as DMM WG document
X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group <dmm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dmm>, <mailto:dmm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmm/>
List-Post: <mailto:dmm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm>, <mailto:dmm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 11:07:25 -0000

More precisely on the latter point,

> 
>> Particularly the discussion around slicing is very speculative. And conclusion thereof that “The expected evaluation points from this aspect should be whether the candidate protocols can support to indicate a network slice in the UP packets.” Firstly, IETF doesn’t have any work on slicing, on the contrary. Secondly, the need for such indication in the 3GPP has been discussed in the ongoing 3GPP CT4 meeting this week with fully opposing views for such network slice indication. (Network slicing is supported in 3GPP Rel-15 already, and nothing new was defined in the user plane in Rel-15. There was no need for that!)
> 
> It looks not accurate view of the latest discussion in 3GPP CT4. CT4 agreed not to introduce any NEW identifiers to indicate network slice for 5GC and its transport. Existing identifiers can be expected for that purpose in user plane.

3GPP CT4 sees Network Slice consists of 5GC slice and transport slice while what's the transport slice is out of scope. As the 5GC control plane has maintained the context of 5GC slice, no identifier is needed in user plane to indicate *5GC slice*. Existing identifiers like VIDs, MPLS labels and IP addresses can be expected to indicate transport slices if it exists.

Cheers,
--satoru



> 
> 
> Hope it helps our understanding correct.
> 
> Best regards,
> --satoru
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 2018/12/14 15:14、Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) <sgundave@cisco.com>のメール:
>> 
>> Folks – Sorry for the delay on this. Given the number of support votes for the company I am affiliated with, I thought it would be best for my co-chair Dapeng reviews this feedback, and in consultation with the AD, makes the decision on this. We will close it soon. 
>> 
>> Sri
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: Sri Gundavelli <sgundave@cisco.com>
>> Date: Wednesday, December 5, 2018 at 9:18 AM
>> To: "dmm@ietf.org" <dmm@ietf.org>
>> Subject: Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as DMM WG document
>> 
>> Thanks for all the feedback. The adoption call is now closed. We will review the feedback and decide on the next steps.
>> 
>> Sri
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: dmm <dmm-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Sri Gundavelli <sgundave@cisco.com>
>> Date: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 10:42 AM
>> To: "dmm@ietf.org" <dmm@ietf.org>
>> Subject: Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as DMM WG document
>> 
>> Gentle reminder.  The below adoption call will close next week, the 4th of December, 2018. Please provide your feedback. 
>> 
>> 
>> Sri
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: dmm <dmm-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Sri Gundavelli <sgundave@cisco.com>
>> Date: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 at 4:34 PM
>> To: "dmm@ietf.org" <dmm@ietf.org>
>> Subject: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as DMM WG document
>> 
>> Folks:
>> 
>> During IETF 102 and 103, the authors of the document, draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis.txt have provided the overview of this document. The chairs felt there is good amount of work that went into the document and the analysis has value. The document quality is very high. There was also generally good feedback and interest for the work from the community. We are therefore considering adopting this document as a DMM WG document, to be moved on Informational Standards track.  
>> 
>> There were also few concerns/comments on the 1.) Relevance of this document to 3GPP in the immediate time frame 2.) Archival Value of the document 3.) Target Audience  - IETF or 3GPP. 
>> On #3, there was also a view that the document should be restructured to make it IETF focussed.  With this background, we would like to ask the WG to provide some feedback on their interest for this work. Please provide substantial comments as why this should be adopted, or why it should not be adopted. If there is interest, and if there are no other concerns from AD/IESG/Others, then we may take up this work at some point. 
>> 
>> Draft Pointer: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02
>> 
>> 
>> The adoption call will end on 4th of December, 2019.
>> 
>> 
>> Regards
>> Dapping & Sri
>> _______________________________________________
>> dmm mailing list
>> dmm@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>