Hi All, and Happy New Year! I agree with the points raised by Lionel. The LS should have a stated purpose of either "for information" or "for action". If for action, the action(s) and any deadline for such action should be specified. In this case, it seems the LS is intended to be for information. If OSPAWG is seeking answers to specific questions or confirmation that specific information is correct, those details should be stated here.
Also, any LS to 3GPP needs to be formatted as a meeting contribution such that it can be treated at an upcoming meeting by the targeted 3GPP groups (e.g., SA5 and CT4). I can help with that. Cheers, Charles On Jan 8, 2025, at 10:40 AM, Lionel Morand <lionel.mor...@huawei.com> wrote: Hi, It could useful to address specific 3GPP WG(s) instead of sending the LS to “3GPP” I think that SA5, responsible for the OAM aspects and CT4, responsible for GTP specifications, are the relevant WGs. From the LS, it is not so clear whether it is requested an informal feedback from 3GPP or if it is expected that this LS will trigger a specific work in 3GPP (e.g. adoption of IPFIX to export of GTP-U Information). For the latter, this LS will have to be supported by a 3GPP document submitted by a 3GPP member involved in the WG (likely SA5) to further discuss this aspect. These comments are just to ensure that OPSAWG will received a feedback from 3GPP. Otherwise, it is likely that this LS will just be simply “noted” by 3GPP. M2Cts, Lionel From: Kaippallimalil John <john.kaippallima...@futurewei.com<mailto:john.kaippallima...@futurewei.com>> Sent: mercredi 8 janvier 2025 19:11 To: Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jcla...@cisco.com<mailto:jcla...@cisco.com>>; Benoit Claise <benoit.cla...@huawei.com<mailto:benoit.cla...@huawei.com>>; d...@ietf.org<mailto:d...@ietf.org> Cc: opsawg@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>; Peter Schmitt <peter.schm...@huawei.com<mailto:peter.schm...@huawei.com>>; Charles Eckel (eckelcu) <ecke...@cisco.com<mailto:ecke...@cisco.com>> Subject: [DMM] FW: Liaison statement between IETF and 3GPP on GTP-U Hi Joe, Benoit, I don’t have any comments on the draft LS per se. Added Peter and Charles who coordinate the liaison management and collaboration between 3GPP – IETF if they have any early input. Best Regards, John From: Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jclarke=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:jclarke=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>> Sent: Wednesday, January 8, 2025 11:42 AM To: d...@ietf.org<mailto:d...@ietf.org> Cc: opsawg@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg@ietf.org> Subject: [DMM] Liaison statement between IETF and 3GPP on GTP-U Happy New Year, dmm WG members. Benoît and I, as chairs of opsawg, are drafting the attached liaison statement to send to 3GPP on the IPFIX/GTP-U work that is happening in opsawg. We’d like to get their additional review of that work. Since dmm is also engaged in GTP work, we wanted to send this LS here to get a review of the text and see if you would like to add anything and have the dmm chairs co-sign with Benoît and me. Thanks! Joe and Benoît
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
