On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 2:21 AM Lionel Morand <lionel.morand= 40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 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. > > > +1 to Lionel Behcet > Regards, > > > > Lionel > > > > *From:* mohamed.boucad...@orange.com <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> > *Sent:* vendredi 10 janvier 2025 08:56 > *To:* Charles Eckel (eckelcu) <eckelcu=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>; Joe > Clarke (jclarke) <jcla...@cisco.com> > *Cc:* Peter Schmitt <peter.schm...@huawei.com>; Lionel Morand < > lionel.mor...@huawei.com>; Kaippallimalil John < > john.kaippallima...@futurewei.com>; d...@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org; > 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> > *Envoyé :* vendredi 10 janvier 2025 01:07 > *À :* Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jcla...@cisco.com> > *Cc :* Peter Schmitt <peter.schm...@huawei.com>; Lionel Morand < > lionel.mor...@huawei.com>; Kaippallimalil John < > john.kaippallima...@futurewei.com>; d...@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org; > 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> > wrote: > > > > Thanks, Charles. Here is a slightly modified version that I think reads a > bit better. > > > > Joe > > > > *From: *Charles Eckel (eckelcu) <ecke...@cisco.com> > *Date: *Thursday, January 9, 2025 at 12:03 > *To: *Peter Schmitt <peter.schm...@huawei.com> > *Cc: *Benoit Claise <benoit.cla...@huawei.com>, Lionel Morand < > lionel.mor...@huawei.com>, Kaippallimalil John < > john.kaippallima...@futurewei.com>, Joe Clarke (jclarke) < > jcla...@cisco.com>, d...@ietf.org <d...@ietf.org>, opsawg@ietf.org < > opsawg@ietf.org>, opsawg-...@ietf.org <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> > 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> > *Sent:* Thursday, 9 January 2025 17:04 > *To:* Peter Schmitt <peter.schm...@huawei.com>; Charles Eckel (eckelcu) < > ecke...@cisco.com>; Lionel Morand <lionel.mor...@huawei.com> > *Cc:* Kaippallimalil John <john.kaippallima...@futurewei.com>; Joe Clarke > (jclarke) <jcla...@cisco.com>; d...@ietf.org; 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> <ecke...@cisco.com> > > To contact: Susanna Kooistra 3gppliai...@etsi.org, Peter Schmitt > <peter.schm...@huawei.com> <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> <ecke...@cisco.com> > *Sent:* Wednesday, 8 January 2025 22:27 > *To:* Lionel Morand <lionel.mor...@huawei.com> <lionel.mor...@huawei.com> > *Cc:* Kaippallimalil John <john.kaippallima...@futurewei.com> > <john.kaippallima...@futurewei.com>; Joe Clarke (jclarke) > <jcla...@cisco.com> <jcla...@cisco.com>; Benoit Claise > <benoit.cla...@huawei.com> <benoit.cla...@huawei.com>; d...@ietf.org; > opsawg@ietf.org; Peter Schmitt <peter.schm...@huawei.com> > <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> > *Sent:* mercredi 8 janvier 2025 19:11 > *To:* Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jcla...@cisco.com>; Benoit Claise < > benoit.cla...@huawei.com>; d...@ietf.org > *Cc:* opsawg@ietf.org; Peter Schmitt <peter.schm...@huawei.com>; Charles > Eckel (eckelcu) <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> > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 8, 2025 11:42 AM > *To:* d...@ietf.org > *Cc:* 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. > > _______________________________________________ > dmm mailing list -- d...@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to dmm-le...@ietf.org >
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
