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

["Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <[e-mail]>]

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" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> 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:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
Sent: Monday, July 9, 2018 11:51 AM
To: Arashmid Akhavain <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
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" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
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:[e-mail]]
Sent: 08 July 2018 19:29
To: Arashmid Akhavain <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
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.
All - Please comment.
Sri
On 7/8/18, 2:14 PM, "Arashmid Akhavain"
<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
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:[e-mail]]
>Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2018 2:25 AM
>To: Arashmid Akhavain <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>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"
<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
>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:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Sri
>>> Gundavelli
>>> (sgundave)
>>> Sent: 06 July 2018 13:49
>>> To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ietf.org_
>>> id_draft-2Dbogineni-2Ddmm-2Doptimized-2Dmobile-2Duser-2D&d=DwIGaQ
>>> &c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=IdiSODh8aDRjdCeG
>>> gd9MznLHMYKgKcs_YSwXBDiaofh47oilzaXYRYETcBynUdpT&m=2P43xC8rAQdTzO
>>> xlE8TFN4JHtDNiS3-Bla-NW2dy5Uc&s=7RmBb1eJcy68WgzP737vKuNKmsGjjWUmb
>>> ENKWvLWLJY&e=
plane
>>> -
>>> 01.tx
>>> t (Individual submission)
>>>
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org
>>> _internet-2Ddrafts_draft-2Dhmm-2Ddmm-2D5g-2Duplane-2D&d=DwIGaQ&c=
>>> udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=IdiSODh8aDRjdCeGgd9
>>> MznLHMYKgKcs_YSwXBDiaofh47oilzaXYRYETcBynUdpT&m=2P43xC8rAQdTzOxlE
>>> 8TFN4JHtDNiS3-Bla-NW2dy5Uc&s=_QrVEL6buvQq2wBhoWgfcFZKIJLyrfZDYEwC
>>> 6mO-CFo&e=
analysis
>>> -
>>> 00.tx
>>> t (Individual submission)
>>>
>>>
>>> Related Documents:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_
>>>id_draft-2Dietf-2Ddmm-2Dsrv6-2Dmobile-2Duplane-2D02.txt&d=DwIGaQ&c
>>>=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=IdiSODh8aDRjdCeGgd9
>>>MznLHMYKgKcs_YSwXBDiaofh47oilzaXYRYETcBynUdpT&m=2P43xC8rAQdTzOxlE8
>>>TFN4JHtDNiS3-Bla-NW2dy5Uc&s=s5Mrhsk2KGDvDJYa2umatkWJhLp7OQnN-rehy2
>>>P6CfM&e=
>>>(Working
>>> group document)
>>>
>>>
>>> Link to DMM Pages:
>>>
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.
>>> ietf.org_wg_dmm_documents_&d=DwIGaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ
>>> 3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=IdiSODh8aDRjdCeGgd9MznLHMYKgKcs_YSwXBDiaofh47o
>>> ilzaXYRYETcBynUdpT&m=2P43xC8rAQdTzOxlE8TFN4JHtDNiS3-Bla-NW2dy5Uc&
>>> s=fbdx74z160V0ofF_QGl3zisnC1lGoz-ix8hnyN5FW94&e=
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Please let us know if you need any additional information.
>>> "
>>>
>>> -----
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/11/18, 11:16 AM, "Liaison Statement Management Tool"
>>> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>> 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_&d=DwIGaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3L
>>> >Rxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=IdiSODh8aDRjdCeGgd9MznLHMYKgKcs_YSwXBDiaofh47oi
>>> >lzaXYRYETcBynUdpT&m=2P43xC8rAQdTzOxlE8TFN4JHtDNiS3-Bla-NW2dy5Uc&
>>> >s=2EW4NXxag3StwsHSo-kLf1TVYy91iIrLG36RP93FC4A&e=
>>> >Please reply by 2018-07-20
>>> >From: Satoru Matsushima <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>> >To: Sri Gundavelli <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>,Dapeng Liu
>>> ><[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>> >Cc: Dapeng Liu <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>,Terry Manderson
>>> ><[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>,Distributed Mobility Management
>>> Discussion
>>> >List <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>,Sri Gundavelli <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>,Suresh
>>> Krishnan
>>> ><[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> Response Contacts:
>>> >[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>,[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>>> >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 2018 Chennai, India
>>> >CT4#84 16th ­ 20th April 2018 Kunming, China
>>> >CT4#85 21st ­ 25th May 2018 Osaka, Japan
>>> >CT#80 11th ­ 12th June 2018 La Jolla, USA
>>> >CT4#85-bis   9th ­13th July 2018 TBD, France
>>> >CT4#86 20st ­ 24th Aug 2018 TBD, USA
>>> >Attachments:
>>> >
>>> >    CP-180116
>>> >
>>> >https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.or
>>> >g_lib_dt_documents_LIAISON_liaison-2D2018-2D04-2D11-2D&d=DwIGaQ&
>>> >c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=IdiSODh8aDRjdCeG
>>> >gd9MznLHMYKgKcs_YSwXBDiaofh47oilzaXYRYETcBynUdpT&m=2P43xC8rAQdTz
>>> >OxlE8TFN4JHtDNiS3-Bla-NW2dy5Uc&s=7a5vvBhjxirYnfOGe1Ybd3Cw_dkvUOR
>>> >MXVmz7rGOz1o&e=
3gp
>>> >p-t
>>> >sgc
>>> >t-ct4-dmm-cp-173160-new-study-item-on-user-plane-protocol-in-5gc
>>> >-
att
>>> >ach
>>> >men
>>> >t-1.doc
>>> >
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> dmm mailing list
>>> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org
>>> _mailman_listinfo_dmm&d=DwIGaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxp
>>> b6__0PomBTQ&r=IdiSODh8aDRjdCeGgd9MznLHMYKgKcs_YSwXBDiaofh47oilzaX
>>> YRYETcBynUdpT&m=2P43xC8rAQdTzOxlE8TFN4JHtDNiS3-Bla-NW2dy5Uc&s=Xoj
>>> mbv_pldmDBAq78n8x2Q1nER3sJkwnAWTknTrtyQg&e=
>


_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_dmm&d=DwIGaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=IdiSODh8aDRjdCeGgd9MznLHMYKgKcs_YSwXBDiaofh47oilzaXYRYETcBynUdpT&m=2P43xC8rAQdTzOxlE8TFN4JHtDNiS3-Bla-NW2dy5Uc&s=Xojmbv_pldmDBAq78n8x2Q1nER3sJkwnAWTknTrtyQg&e=