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

[Jordan Augé <[e-mail]>]

I am in support of it too.

Cheers,
-- Jordan

> I agree with the current LS
> 
> Arashmid
> 
> From: dmm [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli
> (sgundave) Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 3:49 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User
> Plane Protocol in 5GC"
> 
> All:
> 
> Thank you for the discussion today in the DMM meeting on the Liaison
> response to 3GPP CT4 group.  There was one comment at the microphone that
> we should not reference individual I-D's (non working documents) in the
> response. But, as we discussed and per the below summary, we have explained
> the criteria for inclusion / exclusion of I-D's.  If you still object to
> it, please let us know. We are extending the deadline for comments till
> Friday, 20th of July.
> 
> Dapeng & Sri
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User Plane
> Protocol in 5GC"
> 
> "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Mon, 09 July 2018 17:35 UTCShow
> header<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmm/>
> 
> 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:Kalyani.Bogineni@VerizonWirele
> ss.com<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:Kalyani.Bogineni
> @VerizonWireless.com>>> 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]<mailto:ar
> [e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]>>>;
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[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]<mailto:ar
> [e-mail]%3cmailto:[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]<mailto:ar
> [e-mail]%3cmailto:[e-mail]>>>;
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:[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