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

+1. 

Regards,
Giovanna
________________________________________
From: dmm <dmm-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Jordan Augé <jordan.auge=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 3:56 PM
To: dmm@ietf.org
Cc: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
Subject: Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on User Plane Protocol in 5GC"

I am in support of it too.

Cheers,
-- Jordan

> I agree with the current LS
>
> Arashmid
>
> From: dmm [mailto:dmm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli
> (sgundave) Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 3:49 PM
> To: dmm@ietf.org
> 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)" <sgundave@cisco.com<mailto:sgundave@cisco.com>>
> 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"
> <Kalyani.Bogineni@VerizonWireless.com<mailto:Kalyani.Bogineni@VerizonWirele
> ss.com<mailto:Kalyani.Bogineni@VerizonWireless.com%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:dmm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli
> (sgundave)
>
> Sent: Monday, July 9, 2018 11:51 AM
>
> To: Arashmid Akhavain
> <arashmid.akhavain@huawei.com<mailto:arashmid.akhavain@huawei.com<mailto:ar
> ashmid.akhavain@huawei.com%3cmailto:arashmid.akhavain@huawei.com>>>;
> dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org%3cmailto:dmm@ietf.org>
> >
>
> 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"
> <arashmid.akhavain@huawei.com<mailto:arashmid.akhavain@huawei.com<mailto:ar
> ashmid.akhavain@huawei.com%3cmailto:arashmid.akhavain@huawei.com>>>
>
> 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:sgundave@cisco.com]
>
> Sent: 08 July 2018 19:29
>
> To: Arashmid Akhavain
> <arashmid.akhavain@huawei.com<mailto:arashmid.akhavain@huawei.com<mailto:ar
> ashmid.akhavain@huawei.com%3cmailto:arashmid.akhavain@huawei.com>>>;
> dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org%3cmailto:dmm@ietf.org>
> >
>
> 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

_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm