Thank you Tianji, for your followup on your draft. I understand that you don't have an ANUP implementation. That's fine. And also I agree that rough consensus doesn't require running code to a Informational state document and WG operation in IETF as RFC2418. In the context of the WG adoption call for your draft, we needed to seek technical accuracy as ones pointed out incorrect descriptions in the draft especially on 3GPP Cplane. Asking if a running code exists was one of my take to see if it is correct or not.
But I still want to see if it is implementable or not. Because section 3.2 stated: ...As IETF technologies continue to evolve, they can be automatically > applied > in mobile networks without any changes in 3GPP architecture/specification. [..snip..] * Simplified signaling - instead of seven-steps of separate N2/N4 > signaling from separate AMF/SMF to separate AN/UPF and N11 > signaling between AMF and SMF to set up the N3 tunneling for a PDU > session, a two-step signaling between a new single control plane > entity to the single integrated ANUP is enough - see Section 4.2 > for details. Does the above text mean ANUP can be implementable with no change with 3GPP spec modifications? On the other hand, I found another text as follow: 3. MUP Evolution for 6G > This section discusses potential MUP evolution in 6G mobile networks. > It does involve changes in 3GPP architecture and signaling, so the > purpose is to share the ideas in IETF/wireline community first. This statement sounds reasonable and consistent with your conclusion, but contradicts the section 3.2 text. I was confused about this. So I would appreciate if you could correct me. Best regards, --satoru On Sat, Oct 12, 2024 at 12:05 PM Tianji Jiang <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi, DMM Team: > > > > For our I.D. ( > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zzhang-dmm-mup-evolution/), the > DMM WG chairs initiated the WG adoption call in IETF-118 (Nov., 2023). And > since then, we have made two presentations in IETF-119 and IETF-120. As of > now, there have been many comments discussing the merits vs. concerns of > the draft. This email is summarizing what we have in order to solicit the > continuous discussions as well as push the WG adoption of the I.D. > > > > - *WG Comments & questions vs. our replies & AIs, corresponding to the > up-to-date revised draft, after the adoption-call and the > IETF-118/-119/-120:* > > > > 1. *(From adoption-call) Comment#1: user-plane vs. control-plane* > > > - The draft seems to include inconsistent C-Plane discussions compared > to what the authors argued. > > *[Reply]*: > > - We agree with one comment: CP does play a pivotal role in realizing > the original DMM principles. The full potential of ANUP can be achieved > upon the consideration of both CP & UP. > - The work on user-plane & control-plane in the draft centers around > the MUP/ANUP, i.e., the potential advantages with the integration of gNB & > UPF. > - The discussions on ‘control-plane’ in the draft do not lay on the > broader-sense aspects of 5G CP (e.g., RM, MM, SM, Paging, QoS settings, > etc.). Nor do we intend to do so. Please see our replies to the following > comment#2. > > > > 2. *(From adoption-call) Comment#2: Regarding ‘SMF/N4, AMF/N2, > Paging/RNA-AMF, etc.’* > > > - *Sec.2 of "draft-zzhang-dmm-5g-destiributed-upf" assumed SMF exists, > which could contradict with the ANUP proposal for simplifying signalling > (N4 still required). In terms of paging, RNA paging over Xn has no IP addr > info. If it has, it is different from the current. And it also assumes AMF > exists after paging. It seems to contradict with ANUP concept (N2 still > required too). If AMF doesn’t exist, it is different from the current.* > - *Basically, this comment concerns this I.D. might step into too much > into the 3GPP territory, e.g., talking about architectures of the SMF/N4, > AMF/N2, Paging/RNA-AMF, etc.* > > *[Reply]*: > > - First, we want to be crystal clear: as set forth at the beginning of > the draft, the I.D. does not intend to do the 3GPP 5G/6G work in IETF. So, > while we do list some critical 5GS CP features that might be related to > this I.D., e.g., paging, CP signalling, etc., we have been acknowledging > that the complete studies must be done in 3GPP SDO. > - Without doubt, 5GS is extremely complicated. While the MUP/ANUP > might have certain advantageous impacts to the current 5GS CP, more will be > explored along the time, with the main objective at the 6G evolution, once > the draft is adopted. > - In summary, we don’t intend to cross into the 3GPP territory. Just, > if we do come up with novel thoughts during the normative work of the ANUP, > we will liaise to 3GPP for possible advisory references. > > *[Some actions via I.D. revisions]*: > > - Remove: 2.1 (O-RAN), 6.3 (Mobility HO), 6.4 (Paging) > > o This change is to address the concerns from more than one commenter > that the I.D. should not step into the 3GPP domain. These subsections, > e.g., paging, mobile HO, etc., are sort of 3GPP RAN & CN-CP specific. > > - Add & Revise: > > o A good scenario is added in the section#3 to justify the feasibility > of ANUP: the solution proposals of the 3GPP Rel-19 SID (Satellite Phase-3) > suggest the integrations of (a) CP registration/session establishment; and > (b) UP gNB/UPF (eNB/MME). > > § Revise 6.11 (satellite), move & merge to the section#3. > > o Move the LIPA section (was sec#5) to be a sub-section under the > section#3, to demonstrate it’s being an ANUP-like feature already in 4G. > > - Also modified the subject lines of some sections to make the draft > more readable and easier to follow: Sections#3, #4, including sub-sections. > > > > 3. *(From adoption-call & IETf-120) Comment#3: implementation & > realization on ‘consensus’ claim* > > > - When it comes to rough consensus, should it be proved by the running > code? – The DMM WG Chair has clearly stated that ‘the claim of reaching > consensus > among WG participants’ means, in the context of IETF, implementation > must have been successfully coded. > > o Thanks to this ‘consensus’ claim, similar comment can be seen: "the > focus of the draft should be changed to address details of realizing "ANUP"" > > *[Reply]*: > > · We recognize that the usage of ‘consensus’ might be a > misrepresentation of our intention. Thus, we will correct the 'consensus' > claim from now on. > > · Regardless, we have made it clear that this MUP/ANUP draft > represents some thoughts from the IETF/wireline background, though the > actual specification work needs to happen in 3GPP. That is, IETF does not > do 3GPP standardization. > > · Further, in our common understanding, ‘rough consensus’ does > not necessarily require running code. As we know, many great solutions > started without running code and not every WG requires running code before > progressing documents. Running code does not mean rough consensus either - > only multiple reputable interoperable running codes are meaningful. > > > > 4. *(From IETF-119/-120) Comment#4: Regarding the subtle demarcation > btwn IETF and 3GPP* > > · What kinds of advisory references could this IETF draft provide > to 3GPP? E.g., how this might be useful to the on-going 6G evolution (CP & > UP)? > > *[Reply]*: > > · This I.D. targets at offering to the imminent 6G evolution a > possible reference design, out of numerous proposals, focusing on > integrating the transport functionalities of both AN and CN. > > · As we know, there are lots of research contributions revolving > around the 6G network architecture. For example, an 6G paper published in > IEEE Communication Magazine in July 2023, *6G Architecture Design: from > Overall, Logical and Networking Perspective*, analyzed various new > scenarios, requirements as well as experience learned from the 5G > deployment & operations. It proposed the holistic SBA and DAN (Distributed > Autonomous Architecture) architectural principles for 6G, both of which > talk about self-contained building blocks for AN and CN. Evidently, the > integrated ANUP bears the potentials to offer transport advisory reference > to 3GPP/6G evolution. > > > > > > - *In conclusion:* > > > 1. This draft targets at 6G evolution: > > · The 3GPP Rel-20 (6G roadmap) will start from the Q1 of Y-2025, > a perfect timing for the exploration of the ANUP-like work, e.g., to > investigate a possibly distributed AN, potentially integrated with (some > components) of a (holistic) SBA CN, etc. > > · Further, many contributions are currently discussing the > potential network architecture evolution for 6G, technical directions > spanning both RAN and CN, new infrastructure impacts with TN-NTN > integration, etc. > > · The draft mainly proposes enhancements and potential extensions > for 6G planning. In our thoughts, the ANUP work might result in some good > advisory implications to 6G evolution, like: a flattened, simplified > network architecture with the ANUP taking on both wireless (via air > interface) and wireline (via IP network) connections. > > 2. Current status & proposed scope of the I.D. work: > > · This draft represents work/thoughts from the IETF/wireline > background. It has attracted significant interests and/or supports from > many mobile operators & vendors. > > · While the contribution from the draft strives to offer advisory > reference to 3GPP, the actual specification work needs to happen in 3GPP, > which is out of the scope of this document. > > > > > > Thank you and BR, > > > > -Tianji > > On behalf of all co-authors of the I.D. > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > dmm mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ dmm mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
