Hi John, all, Sorry for this late feedback.
On the following: > 1. status changed to STD from INFO. > It might be for some reason, i.e. namespaces allocation request to IANA. But > XML NS and YANG parameters don't require STD status RFC. Is STD sufficient > status instead of INFO? [John] The reason for switching from INFO to STD was that in section 5, this draft added /extended YANG specification to support GTP-U/UDP. However, in offline discussion with the chairs I believe this is not needed and in version 17, the draft has reverted back to INFO. [Lionel] The reason for my comment on STD vs INFO at IETF#121 was on the following: IANA is requested to register the following YANG module in the "YANG Module Names" subregistry [RFC6020<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-17.html#RFC6020>] within the "YANG parameters" registry. * Name: ietf-ac-udp-tunnel * Maintained by IANA? N * Namespace: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ac-udp-tunnel * Prefix: ac-udp-tunnel * Reference: RFC XXXX Whereas, the related IANA registry (https://www.iana.org/assignments/yang-parameters/yang-parameters.xhtml#yang-parameters-1) indicates: YANG Module Names Registration Procedure(s) RFC Required Maybe something to double-check. Regards, Lionel From: Kaippallimalil John <[email protected]> Sent: lundi 3 mars 2025 17:41 To: Satoru Matsushima <[email protected]>; [email protected] Cc: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) <[email protected]> Subject: [DMM] Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-16 Hi Satoru and all, Thank you for the comments. We posted version 17 to address them. > 1. status changed to STD from INFO. > It might be for some reason, i.e. namespaces allocation request to IANA. But > XML NS and YANG parameters don't require STD status RFC. Is STD sufficient > status instead of INFO? [John] The reason for switching from INFO to STD was that in section 5, this draft added /extended YANG specification to support GTP-U/UDP. However, in offline discussion with the chairs I believe this is not needed and in version 17, the draft has reverted back to INFO. >2. Assumed information model > In Fig.3, "EP_Transport" at gNB-CU includes S-NSSAI. But when I read > TS28.549, the EP_Transport class doesn't include attributes regarding S-NSSAI. > Does this draft refer to the correct spec in 3GPP to show how the slice > mapping be made? [John] TS 28.541 has configuration information for EP_Transport and the mapping to AC. However, we agree that S-NSSAI as shown in the figure (in old version/16) does not belong to EP_Transport. This is now revised in the figure and accompanying text has been updated. Links to version 17: Name: draft-ietf-dmm-tn-aware-mobility Revision: 17 Title: Mobility-aware Transport Network Slicing for 5G Date: 2025-03-03 Group: dmm Pages: 23 URL: https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Farchive%2Fid%2Fdraft-ietf-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-17.txt&data=05%7C02%7Cjohn.kaippallimalil%40futurewei.com%7Cb7350e503a054cd118c208dd5a69f498%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638766133310136610%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ZFtOIAot9YJLhXqcWUEgRUaxTAHp2a96Z8uthkI5lcY%3D&reserved=0<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-17.txt> Status: https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-dmm-tn-aware-mobility%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cjohn.kaippallimalil%40futurewei.com%7Cb7350e503a054cd118c208dd5a69f498%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638766133310155595%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Fgvos1Je3sr5J7X1ppSDkaUEVEsZrPSlmWWwkjpc39M%3D&reserved=0<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmm-tn-aware-mobility/> HTMLized: https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-dmm-tn-aware-mobility&data=05%7C02%7Cjohn.kaippallimalil%40futurewei.com%7Cb7350e503a054cd118c208dd5a69f498%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638766133310167124%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=GIxb9R%2B9jAleZjxPIPX9k%2FRVtsqsy3SDEpkgIBlH6ms%3D&reserved=0<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dmm-tn-aware-mobility> Diff: https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fauthor-tools.ietf.org%2Fiddiff%3Furl2%3Ddraft-ietf-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-17&data=05%7C02%7Cjohn.kaippallimalil%40futurewei.com%7Cb7350e503a054cd118c208dd5a69f498%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C638766133310178144%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2FzJPGTprN9HWwd5gorrXvB1r%2FDc2XjXm7HCsUWTg7xY%3D&reserved=0<https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-17> Best Regards, John From: Satoru Matsushima <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2025 8:20 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Cc: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: [DMM] Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-16 All, The WG LC has been ended for this draft with only one comment. We chairs are concerned that the rest of the dmm community was aware of this WGLC and made enough review. So I suggest next two week for your post WGLC review again. >From my end, when I re-review the draft, I come up some questions as below: 1. status changed to STD from INFO. It might be for some reason, i.e. namespaces allocation request to IANA. But XML NS and YANG parameters don't require STD status RFC. Is STD sufficient status instead of INFO? 2. Assumed information model In Fig.3, "EP_Transport" at gNB-CU includes S-NSSAI. But when I read TS28.549, the EP_Transport class doesn't include attributes regarding S-NSSAI. Does this draft refer to the correct spec in 3GPP to show how the slice mapping be made? Best regards, --satoru On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 5:16 PM Lionel Morand <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi, Since the last IETF meeting, after several rounds of comments and revisions, I think that this draft is now completed and can be moved forward. Regards, Lionel From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: lundi 20 janvier 2025 06:17 To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [DMM] Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-16 Folks: This document, draft-ietf-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-16.txt, went through several revisions based on the WG feedback. The authors believe they have addressed all the comments and there are no open issues that they are tracking at this time. We would like to confirm the same from the working group. The following message commences a two-week WGLC for all feedback. Document Link: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-dmm-tn-aware-mobility-16.txt Please post any comments/concerns on the draft. Thanks! Satoru & Sri Cisco Confidential _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list -- [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
_______________________________________________ dmm mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
