Re: [DMM] IETF104 DMM WG meeting minutes

Marco Liebsch <Marco.Liebsch@neclab.eu> Thu, 28 March 2019 09:37 UTC

Return-Path: <Marco.Liebsch@neclab.eu>
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 948D4120250 for <dmm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Mar 2019 02:37:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 Tc9MFRFd071N for <dmm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Mar 2019 02:37:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailer2.neclab.eu (mailer2.neclab.eu [195.37.70.41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B5631201A7 for <dmm@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Mar 2019 02:37:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailer2.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A25CF2076; Thu, 28 Mar 2019 10:37:01 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Amavisd on Debian GNU/Linux (neclab.eu)
Received: from mailer2.neclab.eu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (atlas-b.office.hd [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0TizcEJ48zNc; Thu, 28 Mar 2019 10:37:01 +0100 (CET)
X-ENC: Last-Hop-TLS-encrypted
X-ENC: Last-Hop-TLS-encrypted
Received: from METHONE.office.hd (METHONE.office.hd [192.168.24.54]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailer2.neclab.eu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E602DF2014; Thu, 28 Mar 2019 10:36:56 +0100 (CET)
Received: from DAPHNIS.office.hd ([169.254.2.2]) by METHONE.office.hd ([192.168.24.54]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Thu, 28 Mar 2019 10:36:56 +0100
From: Marco Liebsch <Marco.Liebsch@neclab.eu>
To: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <sgundave@cisco.com>, "dmm@ietf.org" <dmm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: IETF104 DMM WG meeting minutes
Thread-Index: AQHU5AOK5OkNkiKCvEuPIxGJ+Sagz6YedygAgAJQCnA=
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 09:36:56 +0000
Message-ID: <69756203DDDDE64E987BC4F70B71A26DE5A911ED@DAPHNIS.office.hd>
References: <0D39C2AC-3674-44E7-A688-9D89BE28E849@cisco.com> <C0EE6558-B872-4E91-8E36-C1184881F8C5@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <C0EE6558-B872-4E91-8E36-C1184881F8C5@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.7.0.199]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_69756203DDDDE64E987BC4F70B71A26DE5A911EDDAPHNISofficehd_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmm/RmW_q33VGMJqxxISSsxG6WkjDuI>
Subject: Re: [DMM] IETF104 DMM WG meeting minutes
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: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 09:37:08 -0000

Thanks for the minutes. Only on minor update of a note, as I think the Q&A could be clarified

Notes wite:
..
>   (?) Edge computing needs N3, not only N6?
>   (Marco) Yes, if interfering with GTP
..

The question was if the N3 interface is affected when MEC-5G system integration and operation is done per our proposal.
The answer was no as we don’t interfere with N3 and N9 but propose means to align N6 traffic treatment policies
which is not GTP encapsulated. Bringing the session anchor (UPF) to the network edge may mitigate/eliminate the use of
an N9 interface but N3 will definitely be there for 5G radio access. Hence it’s rather complementary than interfering.

About the slicing question: I said it’s complementary, though including identifies of resources/slices associated with the
data plane into the data models helps the controllers, which enforce traffic treatment policies in the data plane, to access
the right resources. So, the data model should take such identifiers into account, unless the controller has its own
binding between identifiers associated with the data plane where a policy applies and the associated resources/slice.

A more extensive Q&A in writing ☺

Thanks,
marco



From: dmm [mailto:dmm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
Sent: Mittwoch, 27. März 2019 06:02
To: dmm@ietf.org
Subject: [DMM] IETF104 DMM WG meeting minutes

Thank you Miya-san.

Folks -  Please review the below meeting minutes, and propose any corrections.

https://etherpad.ietf.org/p/notes-ietf-104-dmm?useMonospaceFont=true


Sri

From: "Miya Kohno (mkohno)" <mkohno@cisco.com>
Date: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 at 11:41 AM
To: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <sgundave@cisco.com>
Cc: "Miya Kohno (mkohno)" <mkohno@cisco.com>
Subject: IETF104 DMM WG meeting minutes

Hi Sri,

Thank you for the WG meeting today!
Sorry, I could not fully catch the Q&A and especially the name of persons..
That’d be great if someone could check and complete.

https://etherpad.ietf.org/p/notes-ietf-104-dmm?useMonospaceFont=true

Miya