Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane-23: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmm-srv6-mobile-uplane/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you to Stephen Farrell for the SECDIR review. ** I am puzzled by the characterization of this document in the abstract text and in the Introduction (Section 1) as “specif[ying] the applicability of SRv6 (Segment Routing IPv6) to mobile networks.” This seems inaccurate. If this document was focused on applicability, I would have expected it to describe _existing_ protocol behavior being applied to the mobile network use case. However, Section 6 is defining new SR behavior in support of a mobility solution. ** I also don’t understand the 3GPP coordination described in the shepherd report resulting in this document being moved from PS to Informational status. Is this new behavior requested by 3GPP? ** Section 3. Editorial. ... on the other-hand, there are new use-cases like distributed NFVi that are also challenging network operations. Is it “NFVi” or NFVI”? The RFC Editor acronym list (https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt) uses all caps. ** Section 3. In the meantime, applications have shifted to use IPv6, and network operators have started adopting IPv6 as their IP transport. Is there citations that can be provided to substantiate these motivating trends? ** Section 3. SRv6 has been deployed in dozens of networks [I-D.matsushima-spring-srv6-deployment-status]. Is there a non-expired draft that can be referenced? ** Section 3. Typo. s/architetural/architectural/ ** Section 5.2 The gNB MAY resolve the IP address received via the control plane into a SID list using a mechanism like PCEP, DNS-lookup, LISP control-plane or others. The resolution mechanism is out of the scope of this document. Please rephrase this text so that that normative “MAY” does not suggest a list of protocol that are immediately said to be out of scope in the next sentence. ** Section 5.3. What is a “SR Gateway”? I can’t find a reference to it in other SPRING documents. The only text I can find here is that it “maps the GTP-U traffic to SRv6.” -- What does that mapping activity entail? -- Is the gateway the boundary of the SR domain? Yes? ** Section 8. If I was an implementer, I would have trouble understanding the purpose of this section. It appears to be a list of annotated references. Is their implementation suggested for this mobility use case? ** Section 8 A mobile network may be required to implement "network slices", which logically separate network resources. User-plane behaviors represented as SRv6 segments would be part of a slice. Are different “network slices” also different SR domains? _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
