Re: [DMM] FW: dmm - Requested session has been scheduled for IETF 109

[Uma Chunduri <[e-mail]>]

Dear Chairs,

While the document is far from perfect, it does address all the comments
received during the discussions before IETF109 in 08 version (
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-clt-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-08 ) and over a
period of time before. Updates reflecting various points were reflected in
the IET109 presentation.
At this point, we request WG adoption of the same (and obviously shall
continue to improve this in future).
--
Uma C.



====


>
> I just want to further elaborate on some of my reposses:
>
> a. Keeping the MTNC-ID in the packet header creates complications for L2
> (mid/backhaul) and V4 (backhaul) only scenarios. This was discussed in
> IETF105 presentation (issue/discussion) and IETF106 presentation with
> various options before settling on to the current approach. I standby on my
> response to Pablo's question and the aspect mostly de-associated now.
>
> b. Most of this work is orthogonal to overarching and generic slicing
> effort in routing WGs (including various YANG models). The scope of this
> document is much narrow and in the mobility domain and section 3 is mostly
> applicable to the framework proposed, for GTP-based UDP encap environments,
> currently used in N3 and N9 interfaces.
> As I said we would continue to take comments to address further, if any
> suggestions/proposals.
>
>
> Many thx for your feedback/comments.
>
> --
> Uma C.
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 5:00 PM Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) <sgundave=
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Pablo for taking capturing the meeting minutes.
>>
>>
>>
>> https://codimd.ietf.org/notes-ietf-109-dmm#
>>
>>
>>
>> WG -  Please review
>>
>>
>>
>> Sri
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>