Re: [DMM] Comments on draft-clt-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-02
Uma Chunduri <umac.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 05 February 2019 17:20 UTC
Return-Path: <umac.ietf@gmail.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 ABEE8130E92 for <dmm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 09:20:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 OEoTigtJyN4o for <dmm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 09:20:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe29.google.com (mail-vs1-xe29.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e29]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B27D124BAA for <dmm@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 09:20:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe29.google.com with SMTP id u11so2610861vsp.11 for <dmm@ietf.org>; Tue, 05 Feb 2019 09:20:04 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=QKuKdyumD+qed/QajMr2HwSk2BZqJRQS5W+yUrOWQuE=; b=J/SFk+2hkepkl5Bp6rdGR80RikU6VMdJ4PChqQAZP8YaMz2NPkopd2oEB3/EeN7tj4 jRekKDyF4K/jiRIkPBL7Z4DeoWwZZEvC2Pyj+KkS1lFo84sZpf7N1sDZPj42RiO3K24r pmXCgmHRjApiFO1hlDfxGWW6TnbG1EXrzHhtsRV2rnqNgILr+rpxievvmY/x/rUNMIdF 2AW/DIgPR7noFGsZGSBYM+hMGbGgK03373cd6yTinDtFTnyRncapEvcQj2XeWtLgaXjq DACONmM++XfY7t2cPAbed8sqCLIBVkkTp3ZqHT1tzy1lC57ankDcsAIGL2kCbBGVYRJd pb2w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=QKuKdyumD+qed/QajMr2HwSk2BZqJRQS5W+yUrOWQuE=; b=HZfQzppkAren3dyAgtmJ2+PyiigqZjqBC/EDw0p9LAhtbjeZ/dYO3jy3hHfxWVT0q5 h8qp5zDLOp4IFiW3kz+u4VlQxVCNnoxnH5TPQl2p/SqsFrtgMd9fk5MlkF02Q6niEvgv KK+vNX6VYMsI+pZOPe+kwYhDkx7QETKIe+0CJQyI7ljZnO8EIOjZbSoVKvN+K225Qxda hXRasmyjojWsO1FOSFe1wvuOvPRTBviODnKoMKJKRInf7tEGwQuSb9rmvIk5FY8nj0mA qUBK+HOEZEADfz0eVFyJoe6HL8hUiCYlgfBi5ReTA1sCA9MuIxMFUS1JpGK1gscaOIO+ VDMA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAubv9qrG1jitSMm5ctXXz2thGsNgYc7gp8/Imj1psEtc4Y1qV5gR C7uq4bPmLdyRYwUH5E6zEx6XPwCEwEkGbJcJxIo=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IbZ/riCxDl88mfON22W0BNMEUCNhDWgoDpn8h9uor87m9RF+R3bqDw9xIDQWaanufXpdHA00Gc4BaO887D4jbM=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:4c3:: with SMTP id 186mr2498584vse.235.1549387204167; Tue, 05 Feb 2019 09:20:04 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <0E42DD26875E1748992B1E3F732A36AE013D0230@BLREML503-MBX.china.huawei.com> <CAF18ct4w4+AA6_0qh95QSN=AES9WmMg_D+v3PizmWFGZGsydbw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAF18ct4w4+AA6_0qh95QSN=AES9WmMg_D+v3PizmWFGZGsydbw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Uma Chunduri <umac.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2019 09:19:52 -0800
Message-ID: <CAF18ct6UYgj_zF71hdAT6-_84KHbGd6xS2HwnBnt2yrhBSFHUw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sridhar Bhaskaran <sridhar.bhaskaran@huawei.com>, dmm@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ec8e77058128d160"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmm/oM46X65aMS3plA9KyB1s_G4Gxdo>
Subject: Re: [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: Tue, 05 Feb 2019 17:20:08 -0000
> > Hi Sridhar, > > > Thanks for your review. > > My response in-line [Uma]: > > -- > Uma C. > > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 6:49 PM Sridhar Bhaskaran < > sridhar.bhaskaran@huawei.com> wrote: > >> 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. >> > > [Uma]: Agree. References to RQI for down link and 5QI for uplink too > would be corrected to QFI in the 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. >> > [Uma]: Shall fix this. Does Standalone or non-standalone mode of NR make > any difference w.r.t what's been laid out? > >> >> 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. >> > > [Uma]: Shall remove UL/CL discussion specific to SSC mode 3 (as this is > applicable to any mode). But shall keep the SSC mode 3 for BP UPF case to > describe the E2E path with PPR-ID. > >> >> Regards >> Sridhar Bhaskaran >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> dmm mailing list >> dmm@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >> >
- [DMM] Comments on draft-clt-dmm-tn-aware-mobility… Sridhar Bhaskaran
- Re: [DMM] Comments on draft-clt-dmm-tn-aware-mobi… Uma Chunduri