Hi David Lake, Could you please clarify what is your reference for the following statement?
>> The CT4 study for future user-plane makes it clear ***that for cross-domain >> connections GTP is problematic on N9**** and alternatives could be >> considered. Regards Sridhar Bhaskaran -----Original Message----- From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of d.lake=40surrey.ac...@dmarc.ietf.org Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 3:09 PM To: homma.shuns...@lab.ntt.co.jp; dmm@ietf.org; david.i.al...@ericsson.com Cc: s.homma0718+i...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as DMM WG document Dave I agree with you. In Rel 15 it is clear that the user plane protocol on both N3 and N9 is GTP. The CT4 study for future user-plane makes it clear that for cross-domain connections GTP is problematic on N9 and alternatives could be considered. The timeframe is Rel 16 and the working document is TR 29.892. So far there are TWO candidate protocols in the document: 1) GTP 2) SRv6 However, this is a working document and there is plenty of scope to add other candidates in advance of the adoption of the output of CT4 (not sure what date that is - my guess would be sometime round the end of 2019?) So I think IN SCOPE for DMM is suggesting, detailing, explaining new User Plane candidate protocols. OUT OF SCOPE of the DMM is deciding which of those protocols makes it into Rel 16. Surely there are more than 2 candidate protocols we could consider for N3 and N9!? David -----Original Message----- From: dmm <dmm-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Shunsuke Homma Sent: 15 November 2018 09:19 To: dmm@ietf.org; david.i.al...@ericsson.com Cc: s.homma0718+i...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [DMM] Call for adoption of draft-hmm-dmm-5g-uplane-analysis-02 as DMM WG document Hi Dave, Thank you for reviewing our draft and sending your thought for the adoption. When I reviewed the charter I couldn't find any text to make the draft to be out of scope. Could you please elaborate it with the text in the charter? Best regards, Shunsuke On 2018/11/15 6:52, David Allan I wrote: > HI > > AFAIK 3GPP CT4 is looking for work it can adopt, and has indicated > that it wishes to perform the analysis itself. When they were directed > to this document in the recent IETF DMM liaison, it resulted in a > liaison reply clearly indicated they would define their own criteria. > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1590/ > > However in the draft it states in the introduction: "However we > believe that to provide adequate information for 3GPP, we need to > clearly understand what the current user plane protocol is in Release > 15, and architectural requirements for the user plane." And in the > conclusion "Our conclusion here is that we suggest the UP protocol > study work in 3GPP takes into account the evaluation aspects described > in Section 5.", there is more, but I do not feel a need to be pedantic about > it. > > So the purpose of this draft seems to explicitly be to do work for > 3GPP that they have explicitly said they DO NOT WANT. > > At the same time I do not see anything in the charter that suggests we > should be doing this work either. It would appear to have little to > do with DMM's chartered direction. > > As such I am opposed to adoption of the draft. > > Cheers > > Dave > > > > _______________________________________________ > dmm mailing list > dmm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm > -- ---------------------------------- Shunsuke Homma <homma.shuns...@lab.ntt.co.jp> TEL: +81 422 59 3486 FAX: +81 422 60 7460 NTT Network Service Systems Labs. Musashino city, Tokyo, Japan ---------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
