[DMM] Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-22 (Ends 2025-10-30)

[Kaippallimalil John <[e-mail]>]

Hi Xavier,

Thank you for the comments and support.

Please see the new revision that implements the suggested changes below.
Link to diff:

https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fauthor-tools.ietf.org%2Fiddiff%3Furl2%3Ddraft-ietf-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-23&data=05%7C02%7Cjohn.kaippallimalil%40futurewei.com%7Ca53923a3718f4b44e9b608de1bad41bc%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638978628121984873%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=rRuK6uT3gVgtpAK0YvjXQ5IuG%2FC8YnGdGIZI1BQfvXg%3D&reserved=0<https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-23>

Best Regards,
John


From: Xavier de Foy <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2025 11:35 AM
To: Satoru Matsushima <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [DMM] Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-22 (Ends 2025-10-30)

I support the publication of draft-ietf-dmm-tn-aware-mobility and provide a few minor comments below, for the authors' consideration.


- #1: /map a 3GPP slice to a slice in an IP transport network provider/map a 3GPP slice to a slice in an IP transport network/ -OR- /map a 3GPP slice to an  IP transport network slice at a provider edge/

- #3.1: /end-user (UE) sessions/PDU sessions/, because the term PDU session is used multiple times in the document already.
  - Note: consider expanding the term UE as User Equipment in the first occurence of the term in the draft.
  - Note: consider describing the meaning of PDU session at the first occurence of the term.

- #3.3: consider adding text to define what EP_transport is. E.g., /3GPP user plane nodes (gNB, UPF) are provisioned with GTP transport interface information parameters in [TS.28.541-3GPP]./3GPP user plane nodes (gNB, UPF) are provisioned with GTP end point transport (EP_transport) interface information parameters in [TS.28.541-3GPP]./
- #3.3: a few sentences could be clarified a bit,I try illustrating below a few points.
  - "Each EP_Transport is configured with ATTACHMENT_CIRCUIT containing UDP source port number/range for each of the slices (S-NSSAI) supported by the 3GPP user plane node." Maybe: "Each EP_Transport is configured with an ATTACHMENT_CIRCUIT containing UDP source port number/range corresponding to a slice (S-NSSAI) supported by the 3GPP user plane node."
  - "This S-NSSAI in the user plane setup can be used to associate with the previously configured EP_Transport information per S-NSSAI." Maybe: "This S-NSSAI in the user plane setup can be associated with one of the previously configured per-S-NSSAI EP_Transport information."
  - /to that signaled for the PDU session/to the S-NSSAI signaled for the PDU session/

- #4: About the paragraph "In some E2E scenarios, security is desired granularly...", I was wondering if the text could cover something more general than security, e.g., "In some E2E scenarios, additional path characteristics may be desired in the underlying transport network, such as security characteristics.". The rest of the paragraph may be adapted correspondingly, if you agree with this comment. One example of non-security characteristic that comes to mind is regulatory/legal, e.g., the physical location of the path (and this does not need to be spelled out in the text, this is just for illustrating where my comment comes from).
- #6: /authenticaiton/authentication/

Best Regards,
Xavier

On Wed, Oct 29, 2025 at 7:23 AM Kaippallimalil John <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
draft-ietf-dmm-tn-aware-mobility provides a solution to support the capabilities offered by 5G slices across IP transport networks that backhaul the traffic.
As an author, I believe this draft is ready for publication.

Best Regards,
John

From: Satoru Matsushima <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2025 4:52 PM
To: Satoru Matsushima <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-22 (Ends 2025-10-30)

DMMer,

Let me remind you that the mobility-aware transport draft is now in WGLC. It will end on Oct. 30, so please review the draft.
You can use this thread to send your feedback.

Cheers,
--satoru

On Thu, Oct 16, 2025 at 9:09 PM Satoru Matsushima via Datatracker <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Subject: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-22 (Ends 2025-10-30)

This message starts a 2-week WG Last Call for this document.

Abstract:
   Network slicing in 5G enables logical networks for communication
   services of multiple 5G customers to be multiplexed over the same
   infrastructure.  While 5G slicing covers logical separation of
   various aspects of 5G infrastructure and services, user's data plane
   packets over the Radio Access Network (RAN) and Core Network (5GC)
   use IP in many segments of an end-to-end 5G slice.  When end-to-end
   slices in a 5G System use network resources, they are mapped to
   corresponding IP transport network slice(s) which in turn provide the
   bandwidth, latency, isolation, and other criteria required for the
   realization of a 5G slice.

   This document describes mapping of 5G slices to transport network
   slices using UDP source port number of the GTP-U bearer when the IP
   transport network (slice provider) is separated by an "attachment
   circuit" from the networks in which the 5G network functions are
   deployed, for example, 5G functions that are distributed across data
   centers.  The slice mapping defined here is supported transparently
   when a 5G user device moves across 5G attachment points and session
   anchors.

File can be retrieved from:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmm-tn-aware-mobility/

Please review and indicate your support or objection to proceed with the
publication of this document by replying to this email keeping [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
in copy. Objections should be motivated and suggestions to resolve them are
highly appreciated.

Authors, and WG participants in general, are reminded again of the
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79
[1]. Appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 [1] and BCP 79 [2] must be filed, if you are aware of
any. Sanctions available for application to violators of IETF IPR Policy can
be found at [3].

Thank you.

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp78/
[2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp79/
[3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6701/

_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list -- [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>