Liaison statement
Reply LS on port allocation for the W1 interface
Additional information about IETF liaison relationships is available on the
IETF webpage
and the
Internet Architecture Board liaison webpage.
State | Posted |
---|---|
Submitted Date | 2021-03-18 |
From Group | 3GPP-TSGCT-CT4 |
From Contact | Lionel Morand |
To Group | IESG |
To Contacts | The IESG <iesg@ietf.org> |
Cc | The IESG <iesg@ietf.org> The IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org> |
Response Contact | Lionel Morand <lionel.morand@orange.com> Susanna Kooistra <3GPPLiaison@etsi.org> |
Purpose | For action |
Deadline | 2021-04-14 Action Taken |
Attachments | C4-211700_Reply LS-IESG_port allocation for the W1 interface |
Liaisons referring to this one |
Future Port Allocation Requests
|
Body |
1. Overall Description: 3GPP CT WG4 thanks IESG for their Reply LS port allocation for the W1 interface (C4-210144). On Behalf of 3GPP, 3GPP CT WG4 warmly thanks IESG for their action that has permitted the prompt assignment by IANA of an SCTP port to the W1 interface. 3GPP CT WG4 also thanks IESG for the guidance and clarifications provided in the Reply LS and these points have been discussed during the last January meeting. 3GPP CT WG4 would like to share with IESG some information on the progress of the study on the alternative solutions to port assignment and seek for additional clarifications on some of the statements given in the Reply LS. 3GPP CT WG4 has further progressed the study in their Technical Report (TR 29.835) and has initiated the evaluation of the solutions that will be recommended in 3GPP. These solutions include: • OAM configuration • (m)DNS-based solutions • SCTP port multiplexing • (D)TLS based solution based ALPN and/or SNI • 3GPP specific solutions The latest version of the TR 29.835 (v0.4.0) can be found at: https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/archive/29_series/29.835/29835-040.zip The conclusion of the study is expected for June 2021. Respective guidelines (TR 29.941) should be finalized by September 2021. 3GPP CT WG4 still welcome comments from IETF (especially IETF TSV WG) that could be taken into account in the conclusion of the study. Regarding the guidance provided by IESG, 3GPP CT WG4 would like further clarifications on this specific statement: We like to point to the rules and policies documented in BCP 165 (RFC6335 and RFC7605) apply to any future request. The one that is most relevant to 3GPP for any future request is the expectation that assignment of only a single port number per transport protocol will be sufficient across all the future external services, i.e. all 3GPP interfaces that 3GPP defines that use that transport protocol. 3GPP understands that it could be possible to assign to 3GPP a port per transport protocol (UDP, TCP, SCTP, DCCP) that will be used for service port negotiation/discovery for all the future internal interfaces defined by 3GPP, avoiding the need for a systematic IANA port assignment for interfaces used only inside the 3GPP system. This possibility will be seriously considered in the technical report when evaluating the retained solutions for service/port discovery. However, besides the assignment of transport protocol port(s) that could be requested by 3GPP for the deployment of specific service discovery mechanism(s), it is also the 3GPP understanding that this statement cannot prohibit 3GPP to request in the future a port assignment for a new service application for which none of the port assignment alternatives would be applicable. The main objective of the ongoing work in 3GPP is obviously to limit as much as possible the need of assigned ports to identify a 3GPP application. Nevertheless, there might still be valid cases for new IANA port assignment request applications from 3GPP as long as the recommendations and policies of the BCP 165 are carefully followed. A typical example would be the development of a new roaming interface between mobile operator networks that would span across multiple domains and intermediate devices such as firewalls or security gateways filtering services, application that could not be supported by any of the existing solutions used in roaming. It is clearly understood that a port assignment request for a valid use case does not imply an automatic assignment by IANA and the decision to grant this assignment will anyhow depend on the output of IANA review based on one of the policies described in RFC 5226. IESG is kindly ask to confirm that the current 3GPP understanding is correct. If it is not, it is important to clarify why the 3GPP reasoning would be wrong and to point to specific part(s) of the BCP 165 that could help 3GPP to understand the misinterpretation. 2. Actions: To IESG. ACTION: IESG is kindly asked to confirm the 3GPP understanding regarding the possible future port assignment request from 3GPP and provide any additional information that could help to clarify the issue. IESG is kindly invited to provide comments on the latest version of TR.29.835 (v0.4.0). 3. Date of Next CT4 Meetings: 3GPP TSG CT4#103e 04/2021 E-Meeting 3GPP TSG CT4#104e 05/2021 E-Meeting |