Note that I presented LISP to CT4 in August. They were kind enough to give me a slot without a WI being ready.
They asked me to provide a proposal about how a IETF control-plane (specifically LISP) could be used to help manage the AMF, SMF, PCF, AUSF, and UDM functions. They were intrigue about using a different kind of control plane versus a Restful management plane that many of their “N interface” designs are based on. Maybe this WG should devote time to solving control plane issues in mobile networks. And I can say that the LISP WG would be enthusiastic to work with DMM. CT4 was not really interested in solving any data plane issues because they think many of the IETF proposals are no different, or not different enough from GTP. That was my interpretation. Cheers, Dino > On Nov 21, 2018, at 7:16 AM, Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 3:53 PM David Allan I <david.i.al...@ericsson.com> >> 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. >> >> >> > > +1 > > I had raised similar issues before. > > BTW no offense to Shunsuke. > > and no offense to my friend Sri :-) > > Behcet >> Cheers >> >> Dave >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
