To clarify my point, 3GPP WG works only on topics officially agreed by the WG. So, for any formal action in 3GPP, it would be required first to include this topic in the work plan (similar to IETF WG charter), to collect review from delegates, coordinate a consolidate response from the WG before approving a reply LS and sending it back to IETF. This will likely span several meetings. Of course, there are some exceptions but it is the normal 3GPP working procedure.
In the present case, in my understanding, the work done in IETF does not impact the 3GPP specifications and 3GPP is not requested to adopt the solution specified in the draft. Therefore, this cannot be included in the 3GPP work plan and no formal review will be provided by 3GPP. However, with an LS for information, it will be possible to seek for review/comment from key 3GPP experts that may not be informed yet of the ongoing work in OPSAWG. Regards, Lionel From: Lionel Morand <lionel.morand=40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org> Sent: vendredi 10 janvier 2025 09:59 To: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com; Charles Eckel (eckelcu) <eckelcu=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>; Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jcla...@cisco.com> Cc: Peter Schmitt <peter.schm...@huawei.com>; d...@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org; opsawg-...@ietf.org Subject: [DMM] Re: Liaison statement between IETF and 3GPP on GTP-U If I may, what might be required is a review from 3GPP experts, not a formal review from 3GPP. Otherwise, 3GPP would have first to endorse the work done by IETF, what is not required here. It could be even counterproductive. So, if you are seeking for expert review, “for information” is the right status to use in this LS.x Regards, Lionel From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com<mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com<mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>> Sent: vendredi 10 janvier 2025 09:45 To: Lionel Morand <lionel.mor...@huawei.com<mailto:lionel.mor...@huawei.com>>; Charles Eckel (eckelcu) <eckelcu=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:eckelcu=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>>; Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jcla...@cisco.com<mailto:jcla...@cisco.com>> Cc: Peter Schmitt <peter.schm...@huawei.com<mailto:peter.schm...@huawei.com>>; Kaippallimalil John <john.kaippallima...@futurewei.com<mailto:john.kaippallima...@futurewei.com>>; d...@ietf.org<mailto:d...@ietf.org>; opsawg@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>; opsawg-...@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg-...@ietf.org> Subject: RE: Liaison statement between IETF and 3GPP on GTP-U Salut Lionel, I know that you are more familiar than me about 3GPP, but my concern is that I’m afraid that if we tag it as “for information” this will be simply noted and we won’t get any useful feedback (including, “we detected no deviation with our spec”). The initial motivation that triggered this LS was to explicitly seek for a formal 3GPP review. Cheers, Med De : Lionel Morand <lionel.mor...@huawei.com<mailto:lionel.mor...@huawei.com>> Envoyé : vendredi 10 janvier 2025 09:20 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com<mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>>; Charles Eckel (eckelcu) <eckelcu=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:eckelcu=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>>; Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jcla...@cisco.com<mailto:jcla...@cisco.com>> Cc : Peter Schmitt <peter.schm...@huawei.com<mailto:peter.schm...@huawei.com>>; Kaippallimalil John <john.kaippallima...@futurewei.com<mailto:john.kaippallima...@futurewei.com>>; d...@ietf.org<mailto:d...@ietf.org>; opsawg@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>; opsawg-...@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg-...@ietf.org> Objet : RE: Liaison statement between IETF and 3GPP on GTP-U Bonjour Med, In the present case, 3GPP is not required to do anything. It is up to the draft authors to carefully check that the IPFIX IEs are correctly derived from GTP-U header fields, according to the 3GPP specifications. It is for information to the WGs and interested delegates inside the WGs are simply invited to review and provide comments. It will be an individual action and not something managed by the WG. However, even if it is “for information”, it will not prevent the WG(s) from initiating a formal action if it is seemed necessary from a 3GPP point of view. Regards, Lionel From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com<mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com<mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>> Sent: vendredi 10 janvier 2025 08:56 To: Charles Eckel (eckelcu) <eckelcu=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:eckelcu=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>>; Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jcla...@cisco.com<mailto:jcla...@cisco.com>> Cc: Peter Schmitt <peter.schm...@huawei.com<mailto:peter.schm...@huawei.com>>; Lionel Morand <lionel.mor...@huawei.com<mailto:lionel.mor...@huawei.com>>; Kaippallimalil John <john.kaippallima...@futurewei.com<mailto:john.kaippallima...@futurewei.com>>; d...@ietf.org<mailto:d...@ietf.org>; opsawg@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>; opsawg-...@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg-...@ietf.org> Subject: RE: Liaison statement between IETF and 3GPP on GTP-U Hi all, I think the “purpose” should be changed to “for action” as we are asking for checks against authoritative 3GPP specs, in particular. Cheers, Med De : Charles Eckel (eckelcu) <eckelcu=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:eckelcu=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>> Envoyé : vendredi 10 janvier 2025 01:07 À : Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jcla...@cisco.com<mailto:jcla...@cisco.com>> Cc : Peter Schmitt <peter.schm...@huawei.com<mailto:peter.schm...@huawei.com>>; Lionel Morand <lionel.mor...@huawei.com<mailto:lionel.mor...@huawei.com>>; Kaippallimalil John <john.kaippallima...@futurewei.com<mailto:john.kaippallima...@futurewei.com>>; d...@ietf.org<mailto:d...@ietf.org>; opsawg@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>; opsawg-...@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg-...@ietf.org> Objet : [OPSAWG]Re: Liaison statement between IETF and 3GPP on GTP-U Hi Joe, Thanks for this new version. I agree it reads better. The attached version also fixes errors I introduced previously in the 3GPP WG names (thanks for Peter for pointing this out). Cheers, Charles On Jan 9, 2025, at 2:34 PM, Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jcla...@cisco.com<mailto:jcla...@cisco.com>> wrote: Thanks, Charles. Here is a slightly modified version that I think reads a bit better. Joe From: Charles Eckel (eckelcu) <ecke...@cisco.com<mailto:ecke...@cisco.com>> Date: Thursday, January 9, 2025 at 12:03 To: Peter Schmitt <peter.schm...@huawei.com<mailto:peter.schm...@huawei.com>> Cc: Benoit Claise <benoit.cla...@huawei.com<mailto:benoit.cla...@huawei.com>>, Lionel Morand <lionel.mor...@huawei.com<mailto:lionel.mor...@huawei.com>>, Kaippallimalil John <john.kaippallima...@futurewei.com<mailto:john.kaippallima...@futurewei.com>>, Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jcla...@cisco.com<mailto:jcla...@cisco.com>>, d...@ietf.org<mailto:d...@ietf.org> <d...@ietf.org<mailto:d...@ietf.org>>, opsawg@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg@ietf.org> <opsawg@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>>, opsawg-...@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg-...@ietf.org> <opsawg-...@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg-...@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: Liaison statement between IETF and 3GPP on GTP-U [adding the OPS ADs for visibility] Hi Benoit, all, I have formatted the information provided for the LS in a document that can serve as the basis for corresponding 3GPP meeting contributions in SA5 and CT4. The attached document includes some minor editorial changes, but the main text is otherwise the same as that provided by Benoit and Lionel (thanks!). Please review. Once the WG approves, I can enter the corresponding information in the IAB tool and send the LS. Cheers, Charles On Jan 9, 2025, at 8:11 AM, Peter Schmitt <peter.schm...@huawei.com<mailto:peter.schm...@huawei.com>> wrote: Dear Benoit, Only one remark the correct group names are: 3GPP TSG CT WG4 or in short CT4 3GPP TSG SA WG5 or in short SA5 Best regards Peter Schmitt 3GPP TSG CT Chair From: Benoit Claise <benoit.cla...@huawei.com<mailto:benoit.cla...@huawei.com>> Sent: Thursday, 9 January 2025 17:04 To: Peter Schmitt <peter.schm...@huawei.com<mailto:peter.schm...@huawei.com>>; Charles Eckel (eckelcu) <ecke...@cisco.com<mailto:ecke...@cisco.com>>; Lionel Morand <lionel.mor...@huawei.com<mailto:lionel.mor...@huawei.com>> Cc: Kaippallimalil John <john.kaippallima...@futurewei.com<mailto:john.kaippallima...@futurewei.com>>; Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jcla...@cisco.com<mailto:jcla...@cisco.com>>; d...@ietf.org<mailto:d...@ietf.org>; opsawg@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg@ietf.org> Subject: Re: Liaison statement between IETF and 3GPP on GTP-U 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><mailto:ecke...@cisco.com> To contact: Susanna Kooistra 3gppliai...@etsi.org<mailto:3gppliai...@etsi.org>, Peter Schmitt<peter.schm...@huawei.com><mailto: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/). 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) 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><mailto:ecke...@cisco.com> Sent: Wednesday, 8 January 2025 22:27 To: Lionel Morand <lionel.mor...@huawei.com><mailto:lionel.mor...@huawei.com> Cc: Kaippallimalil John <john.kaippallima...@futurewei.com><mailto:john.kaippallima...@futurewei.com>; 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>; opsawg@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>; Peter Schmitt <peter.schm...@huawei.com><mailto: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<mailto: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 <ls-gtpu-in-ipfix.docx> ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
