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

["Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <[e-mail]>]

Thank you all. We will keep the current text. This discussion is now
closed. 


Sri






On 7/19/18, 6:59 AM, "Giovanna Carofiglio (gcarofig)"
<gcarofig=[e-mail]> wrote:

>+1. 
>
>Regards,
>Giovanna
>________________________________________
>From: dmm <[e-mail]> on behalf of Jordan Augé
><jordan.auge=[e-mail]>
>Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 3:56 PM
>To: [e-mail]
>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:[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@VerizonWire
>>le
>> 
>>ss.com<mailto:[e-mail]%3cmailto:Kalyani.Bogin
>>eni
>> @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]
>>g>
>> >
>>
>> 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]
>>g>
>> >
>>
>> 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
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm