Re: [tcmtf] Answers to possible questions in the BOF

Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 12 July 2013 15:53 UTC

Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA32521F9E77 for <tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 08:53:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.559
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.559 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.040, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aXFnr-rrXC+u for <tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 08:53:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-x234.google.com (mail-ob0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1213821F9EB8 for <tcmtf@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 08:53:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ob0-f180.google.com with SMTP id eh20so11296098obb.39 for <tcmtf@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 08:53:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=15lopoJkgnUwzery2zH5qsn1BYV7OboUZB3xcTEX9eo=; b=UWNcMSfYfBMXMVypuj1HfKLTSlCqt7BOsiG1NGEDn3342XhgM/IAU7qMRfE8U9jldf AY9GFstT+dMQQP/XadkYsnJ8JIe9BJKsgOCuSoq/2m1fzzZzOSUw5ZBVtSUnECVzMF6b QuRDVATal3mPpY1DtMoD06dXEBY4WhBsjRl9/mLmqmznMwU5H/OsrFsubq4rw2jPI+OM apf/qApNKNmakS5PGt3fOVrzpuoz+XvIX1QRSUMznOxj9p5hDOIspMILJMIhUoYMAf0J OCNWeRMI6h9wYwYDgPI1eCDA5CTs5GEyp3TpFaKN2B89iELkENw4MwbG9orqmz/f/fgF 3/Iw==
X-Received: by 10.182.33.4 with SMTP id n4mr35669268obi.19.1373644401653; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 08:53:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.77] (99-108-174-213.lightspeed.rcsntx.sbcglobal.net. [99.108.174.213]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id m11sm56294436oer.4.2013.07.12.08.53.19 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 12 Jul 2013 08:53:20 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <51E02655.3000800@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 10:52:53 -0500
From: Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
References: "\"<007e01ce70c9$fe1a0aa0$fa4e1fe0$@unizar.es> <009901ce725a$d1623360$74269a20$@unizar.es> <2543ED38-A2FF-49D7-85E0-4790A31415BC@cisco.com>" <20130628105725.lmag0xgqsgogggww@webmail.unizar.es> <004601ce7bac$c8fc91b0$5af5b510$@unizar.es> <E6D8B95470ED0845B3376F61DCAB1A049CD0C7F1@EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet> <002301ce7beb$5c198370$144c8a50$@unizar.es> <341D9E54-28BF-4C85-A15C-EC06E203EE66@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <341D9E54-28BF-4C85-A15C-EC06E203EE66@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: tcmtf@ietf.org, "'Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal)'" <mperumal@cisco.com>, "'Diego R. Lopez'" <diego@tid.es>, 'jsalazar' <jsalazar@unizar.es>, jsaldana@unizar.es
Subject: Re: [tcmtf] Answers to possible questions in the BOF
X-BeenThere: tcmtf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Tunneling Compressed Multiplexed Traffic Flows \(TCMTF\) discussion list" <tcmtf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcmtf>, <mailto:tcmtf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcmtf>
List-Post: <mailto:tcmtf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcmtf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcmtf>, <mailto:tcmtf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 15:53:23 -0000

On 7/12/2013 10:42 AM, Dan Wing wrote:
> On Jul 8, 2013, at 7:56 AM, Jose Saldana <jsaldana@unizar.es> wrote:
>
>> So it seems that the possibility of a document about Security & TCM-TF might
>> be interesting. What about adding a sentence in the Charter (re-chartering
>> paragraph), talking about that possibility?
>>
>> ....
>> 9. If other interesting features are identified, the group would re-charter
>> and include them, e.g., a
>> mechanism for a multiplexer to discover a de-multiplexer, and vice versa; a
>> mechanism to select an
>> optimal multiplexer and a de-multiplexer when there are more than one
>> muxer/de-muxer for a flow;
>> dynamically applying TCMTF: a higher entity in charge of deciding when and
>> where, applying or not
>> TCMTF, and what kind of TCMTF, and what multiplexing period. Additional
>> methods for estimating delay
>> would also be required; *security issues related to TCM-TF, and methods for
>> securing TCM optimized flows.*
> This text detracts from the charter, because it lists only one reason we might re-charter to broaden the WG's scope.  There are lots of reasons we might re-charter to broaden the WG's scope, of course.  So I don't think this text is really saying anything that needs to be said.
>
> -d

Dan, I broadly agree that you don't want a list of reasons to re-charter 
before you can do work in the charter. I suggested shorter text to Jose 
privately, seconds ago :-)

Spencer