Re: [tcmtf] New version of TCMTF reccomendations draft

Mirko,
I thank you for the changes scheme. I have seen better the improvements.
I agree with these changes.

Julián Fernández-Navajas

  El 09/06/2013 21:38, Mirko Sužnjevic' escribió:
>
> Hello everybody,
>
> I am creating a new version of the TCMTF -- recommendations document. 
> In this mail I will include all the changes which I am including in 
> this version of the document. These changes were suggested on this 
> mailing list as well as by some other sources.
>
> Please if anyone has anything more to add say so now! Or wait till the 
> next version ;) I will submit the new version by 15.6.
>
> Major changes:
>
> 1)Briefly describe traffic flow identification problem (i.e., which 
> flows should be TCMTFed) and possible solutions
>
> 2)Addition of  available traffic classification methods which can be 
> used by TCMTF (i.e., when we know which flow can be TCMTFed assigning 
> it to a proper multiplexing period)
>
> 3)Addition of limitations for non-real time services such as Web browsing
>
> 4)Description of the policies for multiplexing period and possible 
> ways to measure delay
>
> 5)Inclusion of the discussion regarding jitter buffers for VoIP and as 
> well to codec delay
>
> 6)Modifying the suggested values for VoIP based on a user acceptance 
> level, jitter buffers, and codec delay
>
> 7)Addition of the summary section
>
> Moderate changes:
>
> 1)Improved definition of the multiplexing period
>
> 2)Clarification of the latency values that can be added with TCMTF
>
> Minor changes:
>
> 1)Noting that these recommendations are mostly focused on low speed 
> links as on high speed links the added delay should be only few ms
>
> 2)Clarification of sentence: "Therefore, we neither take into account 
> services using an approach in which all the calculations are deployed 
> in the server, which sends a real-time video stream to the client."  
> In a way that it more clearly reflects the fact that we are not 
> addressing the cloud based gaming services which basically stream 
> video which has large packets
>
> 3)Replacing "priority" with "delay sensitive class"
>
> 4)Properly formalizing some terms: replacing "jitter" with "delay 
> variation" as defined in RFC 5481, and using the definition of QoE 
> from RFC 6390
>
> Also some other minor changes and typo corrections.
>
> Thanks again to everyone who provided feedback!
>
> Best regards,
>
> Mirko Suznjevic
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tcmtf mailing list
> tcmtf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcmtf