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

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

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
>> >
>