Re: [re-ECN] Other transports than TCP in charter

Any WG that is formed as a result of this BoF will have a very difficult balancing act to do - clearly eventually we want every transport that is commonly used on the network to integrate ConEx. However each transport will add significantly to the time it takes the WG to produce usable output. My view is that we therefore need to approach transports in a sensible order. One possible compromise might be as follows:

·         Define a clear set of minimal transport requirements since these will allow people to start working out how to integrate this into their transport of choice.

·         Fully define the protocol extensions for TCP since this is still the transport of choice for both the majority of bits and the majority of flows.

·         Then follow Ingemar's suggestion of adding this to RTP (and related real-time protocols) since these are becoming ever more significant as real-time media really starts to take off.

·         Then move onto transports such as SCTP and DCCP once we have evidence of how the TCP implementation is going.

Given the current approach of the IESG is to try and limit the scope of charters in order to get results more quickly we are going to have to choose a point to divide the above list into current and future charters. The deciding factor will be to some extent the number of people prepared to work on a given item. Personally speaking I am torn between putting the split after TCP (which will allow us to make very rapid progress) and after RTP (which may well become very significant in the near future).

Toby

____________________________________________________________________ 
Toby Moncaster, Senior Researcher, Network Infrastructure Practice
B54/70 Adastral Park, Ipswich, IP53RE, UK.  +44 7918 901170 

From: re-ecn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:re-ecn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of bo zhou
Sent: 13 November 2009 02:10
To: Ingemar Johansson S
Cc: re-ecn@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [re-ECN] Other transports than TCP in charter

I believe Ingemar's suggestion is reasonable.

Hope the ConEx WG can consider all transport protocols rather than TCP only.

Regards,

Bo Zhou

China Mobile

On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com> wrote:

Hi

I have raised this concern earlier on this list but I do this again just to make sure that this does not fall between the chairs.
The proposed "strawman" BoF charter discusses TCP. I would like the group to consider IP as the common denominator, the motivation can be found at.
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/re-ecn/current/msg00410.html

In short the work done in ConEx should be able to apply on UDP as well as TCP. Other transports of interest may be SCTP and DCCP.

/Ingemar
=================================
INGEMAR JOHANSSON  M.Sc.
Senior Research Engineer

Ericsson AB
Multimedia Technologies
Labratoriegränd 11
971 28, Luleå, Sweden
Phone +46-1071 43042
SMS/MMS +46-73 078 3289
ingemar.s.johansson@ericsson.com
www.ericsson.com <http://www.ericsson.com/> 
Visit http://labs.ericsson.com <http://labs.ericsson.com/>  !
=================================
_______________________________________________
re-ECN mailing list
re-ECN@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/re-ecn

-- 
Regards,

Bo Zhou
China Mobile