Dear all,
Thanks for your feedback.
Lionel and I had a call. Based on that, Lionel, who is well aware of
3GPP process, reworked this liaison statement:
To put the IAB LS tool and the tool will do the job for you (check
with Charles)
To GPP-TSGSA-SA5, GPP-TSGCT-CT4
From contact: Charles Eckel <ecke...@cisco.com>
To contact: Susanna Kooistra 3gppliai...@etsi.org
<mailto:3gppliai...@etsi.org>, Peter Schmitt <peter.schm...@huawei.com>
Cc: Peter Schmitt, opsawg
Response contact: opsawg chairs
Purpose: for information
Body:
The IETF Operations and Management Area Working Group (OPSAWG) would
like to kindly inform the 3GPP TSG SA5 WG and 3GPP TSG CT4 WG that
the working group is currently working on the following
Internet-Draft: “Export of GTP-U Information in IP Flow Information
Export (IPFIX)”
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-gtpu/
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-gtpu/>).
This document specifies IPFIX Information Elements (IEs) that can be
used to export information contained in the GTP-U header such as
Tunnel Endpoint Identifier (TEID), QoS Flow Identifier (QFI), and
PDU Type from the PDU Session Container extension header.
IETF OPSAWG aims to publish this Internet-Draft as Standards Track
RFC in the upcoming months.
IETF OPSAWG kindly ask 3GPP TSG SA5 WG and 3GPP TSG CT4 WG
interested to review this document and provide comments if any. Note
that the OPSAWG encourages the use of WG mailing list
(https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg>) as the most
effective and expedient way of exchanging information, answering
questions, and clarifying concerns.
OPSAWG Chairs
Joe Clarke & Benoît Claise
Unless there is more feedback, we propose to send it beginning of next week.
Many thanks Lionel.
Regards, Benoit.
On 1/9/2025 8:43 AM, Peter Schmitt wrote:
Hi all;
Happz new year.
I share the view of Lionel and Charles.
From the structure of the document it is not clear if you expect any
kind of feedback it sounds like an information you want to provide.
Means the groups receiving it will simply note it, possibly without
any discussion.
If you want to get feedback the document should be formatted as a
document requesting feedback from the addresses groups. Means you need
to ask for an action.
Best regards
Peter Schmitt
3GPP TSG CT Chair
*From:*Charles Eckel (eckelcu) <ecke...@cisco.com>
*Sent:* Wednesday, 8 January 2025 22:27
*To:* Lionel Morand <lionel.mor...@huawei.com>
*Cc:* Kaippallimalil John <john.kaippallima...@futurewei.com>; Joe
Clarke (jclarke) <jcla...@cisco.com>; Benoit Claise
<benoit.cla...@huawei.com>; d...@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org; Peter
Schmitt <peter.schm...@huawei.com>
*Subject:* Re: Liaison statement between IETF and 3GPP on GTP-U
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
