[DMM] Comments on draft-clt-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-02

Sridhar Bhaskaran <sridhar.bhaskaran@huawei.com> Thu, 31 January 2019 02:49 UTC

Return-Path: <sridhar.bhaskaran@huawei.com>
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 254C6126DBF for <dmm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Jan 2019 18:49:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-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 PLYujiTph0Xi for <dmm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Jan 2019 18:49:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5CA7C126CB6 for <dmm@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Jan 2019 18:49:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhreml707-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 6AE9F24C046F203CCDB0 for <dmm@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 02:49:06 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from BLREML703-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.20.4.172) by lhreml707-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.48) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 02:49:06 +0000
Received: from BLREML503-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.9.122]) by blreml703-cah.china.huawei.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 08:18:55 +0530
From: Sridhar Bhaskaran <sridhar.bhaskaran@huawei.com>
To: "dmm@ietf.org" <dmm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Comments on draft-clt-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-02
Thread-Index: AdS5D0ge70jzDx9PREyKrlpjJknlxw==
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2019 02:48:55 +0000
Message-ID: <0E42DD26875E1748992B1E3F732A36AE013D0230@BLREML503-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.20.148.52]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmm/W6fOOW-oKiu7E78w3AX8X3kNp7s>
Subject: [DMM] Comments on draft-clt-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-02
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, 31 Jan 2019 02:49:10 -0000

Dear all,

I reviewed draft-clt-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-02 and I have the following comments based on 3GPP architectural definitions in TS 23.501 / 23.502

1. Section 2.1 - RQI is just a flag to tell the UE that it has to reflect back the same QFI in the uplink packet. RQI on its own is not a QoS indicator. Hence the use of RQI in the following sentence is not correct

   Mapping of the PDU sessions to TE
   paths can be done based on the source UDP port ranges (if these are
   assigned based on the PDU session QCIs, as done in some deployments
   with 4G/LT) of the GTP-U encapsulated packet or based on the 5QI or
   RQI values in the GTP-U header.

2. Section 2.1, 2.2 - and almost everywhere - Restricting to description of gNB as the radio side is not correct. 5G architecture allows the radio or access node to be any of the following:
a)	gNB (which means radio is NR)
b)	Ng-eNB (which means radio is EUTRA)
c)	Untrusted WLAN
d)	From R16 onwards wireline and Trusted wireless LAN access

So the draft should generally mention as 5G-AN and not as gNB.

3. The draft mixes SSC modes with slicing concept. SSC modes and slicing are two independent concepts. UL/CL and BP UPF are applicable to all SSC modes. SSC modes do not have any relevance when selecting a transport path. The description of SSC modes need to be corrected to rather reflect how / where the PPR-ID is applied for different SSC modes.

Regards 
Sridhar Bhaskaran