HI Teppei-san, & Authors, Thank you for your email.
I did a quick scan of the document and I noted few issues. Given that IETF is not chartered to redefine SDO interfaces, we have to be careful in making sure the draft is not stepping on 3GPP territory. Meaning, we can promote new architectures and technologies in an access agnostic manner and provide applicability statements to a given access architecture. In the process, its better to promote the SRv6 based architecture in a positive manner, state its benefits etc, but have to be slightly careful not to say the current 3GPP system is broken, or use of phrasing indicative of a “compromised” architecture that is in place. I tend to think the draft requires one good edit; structural edit and also some editorial work. Many of the statements on the limitations of current architecture have to be qualified or removed. For example: > Less suited for any-to-any communication * Less suited for edge/distributed computing * Less suited for fixed and mobile convergence (FMC) / wireless- wireline convergence (WWC) * Limited control of the underlay path > As for FMC/WWC, there is currently a coordinated standardization effort between 3GPP WWC [TS.23316] and BBF [BBF407]. However, the idea is to anchor even wireline traffic in the mobile packet core, which compromises simplicity and scalability. > Also, if the UPF is distributed, seamless handover has to be compromised. These statements have to be qualified. It depends on many things, where the application services are etc. More importantly, please try to think how to present this in a good way, where the draft will be seen a benefiting the IETF and 3GPP community. I suggest talking to Satoru-san and few 3GPP experts. I am happy to issue the LC, but I tend to think this needs more work. Please let me know. BR! Sri > On Oct 21, 2026, at 6:14 AM, Teppei Kamata (tkamata) > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Chairs, > > Following the discussion at IETF 126, we have uploaded revision -04 of > draft-ietf-dmm-srv6mob-arch. > > This revision expands Section 2 to clarify the O(N²)-to-O(N) scalability > comparison raised during the session. In particular, it explains the > respective roles of 3GPP session management and the MUP control plane, and > clarifies that the comparison concerns connectivity state for optimized > any-to-any communication. The core architectural discussion remains unchanged. > > We believe the draft is ready for Working Group Last Call and would like to > request that the WG start WGLC. > > We also recall your comment that additional reviewers would be helpful. > Please let us know if you would like us to seek further reviews before > starting WGLC, or if there is anything else we should address. > > Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmm-srv6mob-arch/ > > Best regards, > Teppei
_______________________________________________ dmm mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
