Re: [DMM] Second WGLC on draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane

Section 5.1 and 5.2 are my primary concern.

The structure of 5.3 makes it less clear, but I believe that the fact 
that the UPFs speak SRv6 instead of GTP means that they have the same 
problem.  (There may be descriptive techniques such as treating the SRGW 
as part of the UPF, and therefore the use of SRv6 as internal to the 
UPF, which would not have the problems.  Depending upon how it is written.)

Section 5.4 is fine.

Yours,
Joel

On 4/7/2022 9:52 AM, Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril) wrote:
> Hi Joel,
> 
> Could you please confirm which sub-sections of the draft do your comment apply-to? Thank you.
> 
> Cheers,
> Pablo.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dmm <dmm-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern
> Sent: viernes, 1 de abril de 2022 17:28
> To: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) <sgundave=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>; dmm@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [DMM] Second WGLC on draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane
> 
> As far as I can tell, this document still attempts to redefine 3GPP standards in an IETF standards track document.  That is in my view unacceptable.
> 
> Yes, those sections are labelled "informational".  But they are still the same content, presented the same way.  Pretending they are informational in a standards track document is simply not sufficient.
> If they are really informational, pull them out to a separate informational document.  And we can then debate the value of publishing those non-standard approaches.  (Personally, I do not see the value.)
> 
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> On 4/1/2022 11:13 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote:
>> Folks:
>>
>> We have issued a WGLC on draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane in April of
>> last year. Based on the feedback and the comments from the WG, we
>> chose to hold the document so the authors can resolve the identified
>> issues from that LC. The authors have worked with the reviewers and
>> have revised the document. They believe that there are no open issues.
>> We are issuing a second last call. This message commences a one-week
>> WGLC for all feedback.  Please provide any additional feedback you may have.
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplan
>> e-19
>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-upla
>> ne-19>
>>
>> Sri
>>
>> Chair DMM WG
>>
>> *From: *Sri Gundavelli <sgundave@cisco.com>
>> *Date: *Wednesday, April 7, 2021 at 10:35 AM
>> *To: *"dmm@ietf.org" <dmm@ietf.org>
>> *Subject: *WGLC on draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-11
>>
>> Working Group:
>>
>> As we discussed in the last IETF meeting, we are issuingWGLCon
>> draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-11.
>>
>> The document went through several revisions and there were good amount
>> of reviews on this document. I am very pleased with the quality of
>> this document. The authors have addressed all the comments and there
>> are no open issues that we are tracking at this time. We believe the
>> document is ready for IESG reviews and like to confirm the same from
>> the working group.
>>
>> The following message commences a two weekWGLCfor all feedback.
>>
>> Document Link:
>>
>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-11.t
>> xt
>> <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-11.
>> txt>
>>
>> Please post any comments/concerns on this document.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Sri
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dmm mailing list
>> dmm@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dmm mailing list
> dmm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm