Re: [MEXT] Any Comments fordraft-jeyatharan-mext-flow-tftemp-reference-00

Hi Mohana

Please check my replies again..

BR
Frank

-----Original Message-----
From: Mohana Jeyatharan [mailto:Mohana.Jeyatharan@sg.panasonic.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 7:27 PM
To: Frank Xia; mext
Subject: RE: [MEXT] Any Comments
fordraft-jeyatharan-mext-flow-tftemp-reference-00

Hi Frank,

Thank you for some quick comments.  

Please see some replies below.

BR,
Mohana 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frank Xia [mailto:xiayangsong@huawei.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 6:19 AM
> To: Mohana Jeyatharan; 'mext'
> Subject: RE: [MEXT] Any Comments 
> fordraft-jeyatharan-mext-flow-tftemp-reference-00
> 
> Hi Mohana
> 
> I had a quick glance.
> It is interesting. 
> 
> Some clarification questions are below:
> 1)is TFT(Traffic Flow Template)implementation
>   mandatory for 3GPP mobile node?
>   I think so from your document.

If 3GPP network entitiy decides per flow QoS treatment needed for a
given prefix/HoA, then dedicated bearers will be created by network and
such TFTs will be assigned.  In such a case, the 3GPP MN needs to
understand the TFT when sending data.  Thus I would say it is mandatory
for the MN. However, it is not mandatory to create dedicated bearers. If
there are no dedicated bearers and TFT, the MN will not have TFTs stored
in it. 
Frank=>I am sure about your answer, yes or not. 
" If 3GPP network entitiy decides per flow QoS treatment needed for a
given prefix/HoA ..".  I assume per flow treatment is a prerequisite for
3GPP
when we talk about flow binding topic. So, I think your answer is yes. 

> 2)is it has the same descriptive capability as
>   draft-ietf-mext-binary-ts-04.txt?
>   I think so.
The TFT reference traffic selector suboption is different from the
binary TS traffic selector sub option. In TFT Ref sub option, the data
field only carries the bearer ID to describe the packet filters.
Multiple packet filters are collapsed to a single bearer ID. Moreover,
when there is change in packet filters tied to TFT, a simple refresh
flowbinding would do as described in the TFT-ref draft.  Thus there are
some subtle differences between the two.

However, in highlevel both are describing flows when setting filter
rules.
But, what we are highlighting here is that, when TFTs are present at the
3g bearer filtering table, and the MN wants such flows to be sent via 3G
path, a simple reference to the TFT is an easier way to set flow binding
rules. 
Frank=>Did you contribute this to 3GPP?  IMHO, TFT is a better way to
incorporate
into current 3GPP system.

> 
> BR
> Frank
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mext-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mext-bounces@ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Mohana Jeyatharan
> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 7:53 PM
> To: mext
> Subject: [MEXT] Any Comments for
> draft-jeyatharan-mext-flow-tftemp-reference-00
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> During last IETF-77 MEXT session we could not present the ID 
> draft-jeyatharan-mext-flow-tftemp-reference-00 and get the 
> direct feedback from the WG.
> 
> Would really appreciate if we can get some comments on this 
> draft and general opinion about this draft from the WG.
> 
> The mechanism highlighted in this draft is a simple mechanism 
> to set flow binding rules for flows that have descriptors 
> present at the HA and MN, using a reference to the TFT as a 
> flow descriptor.  
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> BR,
> Mohana
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MEXT mailing list
> MEXT@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
> 
> 