Subject: Re: [DMM] Comment on draft-ietf-dmm-deployment-models

From: Charlie Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2018 16:49:12 -0700

Hello Seil,

Please excuse my delay for this clarifying comments.  I have been 
immersed elsewhere.

In order to be as clear as possible, please let me refer to a couple of 
diagrams.  Slide 5 of your presentation at IETF 101 was entitled 
"Model-5: On Demand Control Plane Orchestration Mode".

A URL is: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/slides-101-dmm-dmm-deployment-models-and-architectural-considerations-01.

And then we have various representations of 3GPP architectural diagrams 
for 5G.  For instance, one can look at slides 4-6 of K. Bogineni et 
al.'s presentation.

A URL for the latter is: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/slides-101-dmm-optimized-mobile-user-plane-solutions-for-5g-00

My suggestion was to try to correlate the two different representations 
of advanced mobility management architectures. This would involve making 
a correspondence between the [dmm] nomenclature (e.g., H-CPA, A-CPN, 
etc.) and the 3GPP nomenclature.  Plus it would be very nice to express 
the Service Primitives in terms of 3GPP 5G reference points - for at 
least a few of them.  Otherwise there is a reasonable chance that people 
from 3GPP and people from IETF may not see each others' points of view.

As I mentioned in an earlier email, I was somewhat surprised that 
routing between access networks using heterogeneous physical media was 
considered to be a problem, so the mismatch of viewpoints between the 
SDOs really does seem to be a problem.  I hope we can avoid it this next 
time around!  Maybe the FPC design for policy will be helpful.  I could 
imagine writing up a new section for inclusion in 
draft-bogineni-dmm-optimized-mobile-user-plane, but as mentioned 
elsewhere it is not clear just what are the criteria for selection.  Or 
(quite likely) I just missed it, but I'll try find it in the rush of 
relevant emails after the last IETF.

Regards,
Charlie P.

On 3/27/2018 1:52 AM, Seil Jeon wrote:
>
> Hi Charlie,
>
> Thanks for your comments on our update of the I-D.
>
> You commented and suggested that 5G functions in TS 23.501 need to be 
> mapped with the CPA/CPN, DPA/DPN introduced in our I-D.
>
> I know you have additional suggestions. Will you specifically mention, 
> please?
>
> Regards,
>
> Seil Jeon
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmm mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm

---

From: "Seil Jeon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 12:00:27 +0900

Hi Charlie,

Thanks for your comments. I think your comments make sense, as I agreed on
it in my presentation.

Showing the mapping and relationship between the given components in this
draft and the 5GS. But I will check about depth of it and what documents
will be considered.

The update version will be posted in May.

Thanks again!

Regards,

Seil Jeon

From: Charlie Perkins [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 8:49 AM
To: Seil Jeon
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [DMM] Comment on draft-ietf-dmm-deployment-models

Hello Seil,

Please excuse my delay for this clarifying comments.  I have been immersed
elsewhere.

In order to be as clear as possible, please let me refer to a couple of
diagrams.  Slide 5 of your presentation at IETF 101 was entitled "Model-5:
On Demand Control Plane Orchestration Mode".

A URL is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/slides-101-dmm-dmm-deploy
ment-models-and-architectural-considerations-01.

And then we have various representations of 3GPP architectural diagrams for
5G.  For instance, one can look at slides 4-6 of K. Bogineni et al.'s
presentation.

A URL for the latter is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/slides-101-dmm-optimized-
mobile-user-plane-solutions-for-5g-00

My suggestion was to try to correlate the two different representations of
advanced mobility management architectures.  This would involve making a
correspondence between the [dmm] nomenclature (e.g., H-CPA, A-CPN, etc.) and
the 3GPP nomenclature.  Plus it would be very nice to express the Service
Primitives in terms of 3GPP 5G reference points - for at least a few of
them.  Otherwise there is a reasonable chance that people from 3GPP and
people from IETF may not see each others' points of view.

As I mentioned in an earlier email, I was somewhat surprised that routing
between access networks using heterogeneous physical media was considered to
be a problem, so the mismatch of viewpoints between the SDOs really does
seem to be a problem.  I hope we can avoid it this next time around!  Maybe
the FPC design for policy will be helpful.  I could imagine writing up a new
section for inclusion in draft-bogineni-dmm-optimized-mobile-user-plane, but
as mentioned elsewhere it is not clear just what are the criteria for
selection.  Or (quite likely) I just missed it, but I'll try find it in the
rush of relevant emails after the last IETF.

Regards,
Charlie P.

Hi Charlie,

You commented and suggested that 5G functions in TS 23.501 need to be mapped
with the CPA/CPN, DPA/DPN introduced in our I-D.

 

Regards,

Seil Jeon

_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> 
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm