[tsvwg] Re: 5QI to DiffServ DSCP Mapping for Slicing (was TR: [Teas] IETF 120 - TEAS WG - Session Logistics

[Subir Das <[e-mail]>]

+1 on what David and Gorry said.

-Subir

On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 5:17 PM Black, David <David.Black=
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Luis and everyone,
>
>
>
> The explanation of the differences in approach is helpful, and I apologize
> for the intrusion of procedural concerns into technical discussion.  With
> the passage of time (4-5 years), 3GPP's views may have changed, plus the
> scope of this draft is considerably less aggressive than the prior scope of
> draft-henry was ... but ... there's still a potential for problems:
>
>
>
> > Please, note that the intention of the draft is NOT to do any kind of
> modification or proposal for changing anything about QCI/5QI,
>
> > which is a subject of standardization of 3GPP in TS-23.501.
>
> Unfortunately, draft-henry had the same intention at the time (4-5 years
> ago).
>
>
>
> > Furthermore, we are NOT intending to standardize any particular
> association, grouping or mapping.
>
> > We are just proposing a way (i.e., procedure) of considering 5QIs when
> requiring DSCP marking in the network.
>
> That "procedure" would be a standard for use of 5QIs, which would likely
> have fallen within the scope of 3GPP's prior strenuous objections.
>
>
>
> On a more positive note, there was some process-oriented discussion of
> this draft in an IETF-3GPP coordination meeting earlier today.  IMHO, that
> discussion suggests that if there's WG interest in adopting this draft,
> then prior to actual adoption, it would be good to ascertain whether 3GPP's
> views in this area have changed via a liaison statement from the WG to 3GPP
> (and a response).  If 3GPP's views have changed to accommodate IETF work in
> this area, then that liaison process should not pose any problems.
>
>
>
> I will plan to attend the discussion of this draft in the TEAS meeting
> later this week.
>
>
>
> Thanks, --David
>
>
>
> *From:* LUIS MIGUEL CONTRERAS MURILLO <
> [e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Saturday, July 20, 2024 9:12 PM
> *To:* Gorry Fairhurst <[e-mail]>; Black, David <David.Black=
> [e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> *Cc:* [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Black,
> David <[e-mail]>; Ivan Bykov <[e-mail]>; Krzysztof
> Szarkowicz <[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* RE: [tsvwg] Re: 5QI to DiffServ DSCP Mapping for Slicing (was
> TR: [Teas] IETF 120 - TEAS WG - Session Logistics
>
>
>
> [EXTERNAL EMAIL]
>
> Hi Gorry, David, Med, all,
>
>
>
> During IETF 119 there was a question from Lou (as TEAS chair) on the chat
> of TEAS WG meeting about to explain the differences between
> draft-cbs-teas-5qi-to-dscp-mapping and draft-henry-tsvwg-diffserv-to-qci,
> which is referenced in the former draft, and that was presented to TSVWG.
>
>
>
> There are a number of similarities but also differences. Both drafts try
> to relate the quality indicators in the Radio Access Network (RAN) part, as
> defined by 3GPP, with DSCP values interpretable by the network (transport
> network in 3GPP terminology). The departing point from
> draft-henry-tsvwg-diffserv-to-qci was to define such relationship based on
> the type of communication service being delivered, so following an
> application-centric approach.
>
>
>
> In draft-cbs-teas-5qi-to-dscp-mapping we follow a different strategy. Here
> we refer to the characteristics / properties associated to such quality
> indicators (i.e., 5QI / QCI) in terms of expected latency, packet-loss as
> well as the nature of the flows (i.e., guaranteed bit rate vs
> non-guaranteed bit rate). After such characterization there is a proposal
> of grouping indicators according to similar expected behavior, with the aim
> of providing afterwards a common DSCP marking to such groups. The reason
> for it is that the number of queues in the network elements is limited, so
> similar services / applications can be allocated to the same queue in terms
> of QoS expectation. So we can call this approach as behavior-centric.
>
>
>
> Apart from this different approach, draft-cbs-teas-5qi-to-dscp-mapping
> covers both 4G and 5G quality indicators (i.e., QCI and 5QI), and also
> extends the initial approach to the consideration of fronthaul traffic as
> proposed by radio functional splits as proposed in O-RAN.
>
>
>
> The motivation of bringing this work initially to TEAS is because this
> association of characteristics / properties derived from the indicators
> (including the idea of grouping) is closely related to the concept of
> network slicing, in our understanding.
>
>
>
> Please, note that the intention of the draft is NOT to do any kind of
> modification or proposal for changing anything about QCI/5QI, which is a
> subject of standardization of 3GPP in TS-23.501. Furthermore, we are NOT
> intending to standardize any particular association, grouping or mapping.
> We are just proposing a way (i.e., procedure) of considering 5QIs when
> requiring DSCP marking in the network.
>
>
>
> Hope this clarifies better the purpose behind the draft. For sure, as very
> next steps, we can consider to present the draft at TSVWG as soon as it is
> possible (IETF 121?) for receiving the proper feedback from the working
> group.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
>
>
> Luis, Krzysztof and Ivan
>
>
>
>
>
> *De:* Gorry Fairhurst <[e-mail]>
> *Enviado el:* viernes, 19 de julio de 2024 16:53
> *Para:* Black, David <David.Black=[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> *CC:* [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Black,
> David <[e-mail]>
> *Asunto:* Re: [tsvwg] Re: 5QI to DiffServ DSCP Mapping for Slicing (was
> TR: [Teas] IETF 120 - TEAS WG - Session Logistics
>
>
>
> *AVISO/WARNING:* Este correo electrónico se originó desde fuera de la
> organización. No haga clic en enlaces ni abra archivos adjuntos a menos que
> reconozca al remitente y sepa que el contenido es seguro / This email has
> been originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or
> open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
> safe.
>
>
>
> On 19/07/2024 15:05, Black, David wrote:
>
> Hi Med,
>
> [+teas list]
>
>
>
> Thanks for the pointer – IMHO, the specific DSCP mappings also ought to be
> discussed in tsvwg.  Beyond the mappings, the draft contains a lot of 5G
> and MPLS material for which teas is likely to be a better forum.
>
>
>
> The draft's reference to draft-henry-tsvwg-diffserv-to-qci brings up some
> important context.  Back when draft-henry-tsvwg-diffserv-to-qci was
> considered in tsvwg, 3GPP was strongly opposed to any IETF standardization
> (even via an Informational RFC) of QCI/5CI – Diffserv (including DSCP)
> mappings, especially for public (carrier) networks.  Has that 3GPP position
> changed since then?
>
>
>
> Thanks, --David (a former tsvwg chair)
>
> +1 on what David said.... Let's try to make sure that anything
> DSCP-related is presented to tsvwg if this draft proceeds, and reviewed
> there.
>
> I's suggest also that the MPLS-related topics belongs in a WG that has
> that scope.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Gorry (as TSVWG Co-Chair)
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario,
> puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso
> exclusivo de la persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el
> destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la lectura, utilización,
> divulgación y/o copia sin autorización puede estar prohibida en virtud de
> la legislación vigente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos
> que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y proceda a su
> destrucción.
>
> The information contained in this transmission is confidential and
> privileged information intended only for the use of the individual or
> entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended
> recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
> copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received
> this transmission in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the
> sender that you have received this communication in error and then delete
> it.
>
> Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinatário,
> pode conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e é para uso exclusivo
> da pessoa ou entidade de destino. Se não é vossa senhoria o destinatário
> indicado, fica notificado de que a leitura, utilização, divulgação e/ou
> cópia sem autorização pode estar proibida em virtude da legislação vigente.
> Se recebeu esta mensagem por erro, rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique
> imediatamente por esta mesma via e proceda a sua destruição
>