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

[Arashmid Akhavain <[e-mail]>]

Hi Sri,

A minor addition to the end of this sentence would perhaps do the trick.

These proposals include protocol specifications based on new/existing protocols, proposals covering requirements/analysis/comparison of various approaches, and building proof of concept demos.

Arashmid

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: 09 July 2018 11:51
> To: Arashmid Akhavain <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: 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]>
> 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]>;
> [e-mail]
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 7/8/18, 2:14 PM, "Arashmid Akhavain"
> >> <[e-mail]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Hi Sri,
> >> >Thank you for the reply. Pablo's draft is rather different as it
> >> >describes the two POCs addressing the mobile core data plane.
> >> >Referencing the POCs in the LS can help put things into perspective
> >> >and sort of backs up all the analysis work that everyone have been
> >> >involved in for the last while.
> >> >
> >> >I agree, we do want to keep it simple, but the POCs can certainly
> >> >add
> >>to
> >> >the strength of the LS.
> >> >
> >> >Regards,
> >> >Arashmid
> >> >
> >> >-----Original Message-----
> >> >From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >> >Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2018 2:25 AM
> >> >To: Arashmid Akhavain <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]
> >> >Subject: Re: New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study Item on
> >> >User Plane Protocol in 5GC"
> >> >
> >> >Hi Arashmid,
> >> >
> >> >Thanks for the feedback.
> >> >
> >> >I have added a link to the DMM WG pages and it has links to all the
> >> >DMM documents. I think that should be OK, we don’t have to
> >> >explicitly list out every single I-D at this stage. As we move
> >> >forward and based on WG discussions/progress, we can provide more
> >> >detailed feedback on each document. I suggest we keep this simple for
> now.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> So, what happens next? We wait for their reply?
> >> >
> >> >This is just a response to the LS; more an information exchange on
> >> >the status/progress.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Regards
> >> >Sri
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >On 7/6/18, 1:56 PM, "Arashmid Akhavain"
> >> <[e-mail]>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>Hi Sri,
> >> >>
> >> >>We might also want to add draft-camarillo-dmm-srv6-mobile-pocs-00
> >> >>under "Related Documents".
> >> >>
> >> >>Also, we might want to say something like:
> >> >>"Although we will NOT pick a particular approach, we will be ready
> >> >>to provide further assistance to 3GPP regarding the technical
> >> >>details of different candidates."
> >> >>
> >> >>So, what happens next? We wait for their reply?
> >> >>
> >> >>Cheers,
> >> >>Arashmid
> >> >>
> >> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >> >>> From: dmm [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Sri
> >> >>> Gundavelli
> >> >>> (sgundave)
> >> >>> Sent: 06 July 2018 13:49
> >> >>> To: [e-mail]
> >> >>> Subject: Re: [DMM] New Liaison Statement, "CP-173160: New Study
> >> >>> Item on User Plane Protocol in 5GC"
> >> >>>
> >> >>> We plan to send the following response to 3GPP CT4.  If you have
> >> >>>any quick  comments/corrections/suggestions, please let us know in a
> day.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> ³
> >> >>> Thank you for your Liaison request (Reference: CP-173160) and for
> >> >>>sharing  the information on the status of the CT4 study item on
> >> >>>user-plane protocol  for 5GC. The IETF DMM working group wants to
> >> >>>acknowledge your request  and want to share the following update.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> IETF DMM working is currently reviewing various proposals on
> >> >>>approaches  for realizing optimizations in user-plane for mobile
> >> >>>packet core. These  proposals include protocol specifications
> >> >>>based
> >>on
> >> >>>new/existing protocols  and proposals covering
> >> >>>requirements/analysis/comparison of various  approaches. At this
> >>point
> >> >>>of time, some of these documents are working  group documents and
> >> some
> >> >>>are individual submissions and yet to be  adopted as working group
> >> >>>documents.  Based on the working group interest,  feedback
> >> >>>charter-scope, the working group may choose to adopt some of
> >> >>>these work items as working group documents and at that time will
> >> >>>seek feedback from 3GPP.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> We also would like to state that the DMM working group will not
> >> >>> be
> >>in
> >> >>>a  position to pick a single approach/solution as THE approach for
> >> >>>user-plane  optimization. Most likely the working group may
> >> >>>standardize more than one  approach, but will characterize each of
> >> >>>these approaches based on its  technical capabilities and
> >>limitations.
> >> >>>This approach would be consistent with  the approach that IETF
> >> >>>took with IPv6 transitioning work, where IETF  standardized
> >> >>>multiple approaches including DSLite, NAT64, Gi-DSLite and  other
> approaches.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Finally, IETF would like to point 3GPP to the following documents
> >> >>> under consideration.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-bogineni-dmm-optimized-mobile-user-
> >> plane
> >> >>> -
> >> >>> 01.tx
> >> >>> t (Individual submission)
> >> >>>
> >> >>> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-
> >> analysis
> >> >>> -
> >> >>> 00.tx
> >> >>> t (Individual submission)
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Related Documents:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-02.txt
> >> >>>(Working
> >> >>> group document)
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Link to DMM Pages:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dmm/documents/
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Please let us know if you need any additional information.
> >> >>> "
> >> >>>
> >> >>> -----
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On 4/11/18, 11:16 AM, "Liaison Statement Management Tool"
> >> >>> <[e-mail]>
> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> >Title: CP-173160: New Study Item on User Plane Protocol in 5GC
> >> >>> >Submission Date: 2018-04-11 URL of the IETF Web page:
> >> >>> >https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1572/
> >> >>> >Please reply by 2018-07-20
> >> >>> >From: Satoru Matsushima <[e-mail]>
> >> >>> >To: Sri Gundavelli <[e-mail]>,Dapeng Liu
> >> >>> ><[e-mail]>
> >> >>> >Cc: Dapeng Liu <[e-mail]>,Terry Manderson
> >> >>> ><[e-mail]>,Distributed Mobility Management
> >> >>> Discussion
> >> >>> >List <[e-mail]>,Sri Gundavelli <[e-mail]>,Suresh
> >> >>> Krishnan
> >> >>> ><[e-mail]> Response Contacts:
> >> >>> >[e-mail],[e-mail]
> >> >>> >Technical Contacts:
> >> >>> >Purpose: For action
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >Body: 1. Overall Description:
> >> >>> >3GPP working group of CT4 (Core and Terminal) would like to
> >> >>> >inform the IETF that CT4 has initiated a study item on user
> >> >>> >plane protocol in 5GC for Release-16 of 5G phase 2 (see CP-173160).
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >Based on the outcome from the IETF / 3GPP Coordination meeting
> >> >>> >at IETF#100, 3GPP CT4 got aware that IETF DMM WG is currently
> >> >>> >working on a possible candidate protocol for the 3GPP 5G user
> >> >>> >plane
> >>protocol.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >3GPP CT4 wants to emphasize that currently there is no related
> >> >>> >evaluation ongoing in 3GPP. Nevertheless, a study item was
> >> >>> >approved for such a study to start in the second half of 2018.
> >> >>> >The study
> >>will
> >> >>> >evaluate between existing solutions within 3GPP and other
> >>protocols,
> >> >>> >based on the Release
> >> >>> >16 stage 2 (system architecture) requirements.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >3GPP CT4 would like to point IETF DMM to the following
> >> >>> >specifications on GTP-U. The Release 16 stage 2 requirements are
> >>not
> >> >>> >yet known but it is worth looking at latest GTP-U spec which
> >> >>> >will
> >>be
> >> >>> >evaluated through the study as the existing protocol.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >€	[1] 3GPP TS 29.281 (V15.1.0): GPRS Tunnelling Protocol User
> Plane
> >> >>> >(GTPv1-U)
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >Following technical report provides information of how 3GPP
> >> >>> >considered GTP-U apply to user plane of 5G_ph1:
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >€	[2] 3GPP TR 29.891 (V15.0.0): 5G System ­ Phase 1; CT4
> Aspects
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >Furthermore, 3GPP would like to give the following general
> >> >>> >guidance to IETF DMM, regarding user plane transport within 3GPP
> networks.
> >> >>> >These are technical specifications that include also the
> >> >>> >necessary information to understand which architectural, QoS,
> >>security-related
> >> >>> >and high-level requirements GTP-U currently complies to within
> >> 5G_ph1.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >€	[3] 3GPP TS 23.501 (V15.0.0): System Architecture for the 5G
> >>System
> >> >>> >€	[4] 3GPP TS 23.502 (V15.0.0): Procedures for the 5G System
> >> >>> >€	[5] 3GPP TS 23.503 (V15.0.0): Policy and Charging Framework
> for
> >>the
> >> >>> 5G
> >> >>> >System
> >> >>> >€	[6] 3GPP TS 33.501 (V0.6.0): Security Architecture (work in
> >> >>>progress)
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >2. Actions:
> >> >>> >To IETF DMM:
> >> >>> >ACTION: 	CT4 respectfully asks IETF DMM to provide any
> information
> >> >>> that
> >> >>> >may be relevant to the above CT4 work by July 2018.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >3. Date of Next CT and CT4 Meetings:
> >> >>> >CT4#83	26th Feb ­ 2nd Mar 2018	Montreal, CAN
> >> >>> >CT#79	19th ­ 20th Mar 2018	Chennai, India
> >> >>> >CT4#84	16th ­ 20th April 2018	Kunming, China
> >> >>> >CT4#85	21st ­ 25th May 2018	Osaka, Japan
> >> >>> >CT#80	11th ­ 12th June 2018	La Jolla, USA
> >> >>> >CT4#85-bis	  9th ­13th July 2018	TBD, France
> >> >>> >CT4#86	20st ­ 24th Aug 2018	TBD, USA
> >> >>> >Attachments:
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >    CP-180116
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >https://www.ietf.org/lib/dt/documents/LIAISON/liaison-2018-04-11
> >> >>> >-
> >> 3gp
> >> >>> >p-t
> >> >>> >sgc
> >> >>> >t-ct4-dmm-cp-173160-new-study-item-on-user-plane-protocol-in-5gc
> >> >>> >-
> >> att
> >> >>> >ach
> >> >>> >men
> >> >>> >t-1.doc
> >> >>> >
> >> >>>
> >> >>> _______________________________________________
> >> >>> dmm mailing list
> >> >>> [e-mail]
> >> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
> >> >
> >