Re: [tcmtf] Improved version (v8) of the TCM-TF charter draft

Tim Chown <> Sat, 23 November 2013 10:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 930D21AE0CD; Sat, 23 Nov 2013 02:00:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.746
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.746 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.525, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HQ_dZnnIENma; Sat, 23 Nov 2013 02:00:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 538571AE0BA; Sat, 23 Nov 2013 02:00:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id rAN9wBLC017788; Sat, 23 Nov 2013 09:58:11 GMT
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.2 rAN9wBLC017788
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple;; s=201304; t=1385200692; bh=Ox4iG8tD9dxK59p4FZjSTB7XfpE=; h=Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=RPL+eLIRIirNsWup2Z40JzoC3Xzi1cDTZQLw7fK7UTZItQ2D3lHSUXJ0j/PaY/qQQ LJ6zHeI4SfIL6yJMpmOYAJWcTaiVzn3Ymy2AGY2qi2oUzjC/AOo5n8MhBKNdaBRQzP buKwIwVfofvyIl8NSE/WGijED7QA3ZwkR83Foncg=
Received: from ( [2001:630:d0:f102::25d]) by ( [2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) envelope-from <> with ESMTP (valid=N/A) id pAM9wB0959627312D0 ret-id none; Sat, 23 Nov 2013 09:58:12 +0000
Received: from [] ( [] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id rAN9w12h009355 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sat, 23 Nov 2013 09:58:02 GMT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1816\))
From: Tim Chown <>
In-Reply-To: <01da01cee768$42926af0$c7b740d0$>
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 09:58:04 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <EMEW3|03e3a08ad2910f9d659aa138fccb1644pAM9wB03tjc||>
References: <008c01cee5e1$9caa4590$d5fed0b0$> <> <01ee01cee6da$b05eb9a0$111c2ce0$> <> <01da01cee768$42926af0$c7b740d0$> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1816)
X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean
X-smtpf-Report: sid=pAM9wA095962731200; tid=pAM9wB0959627312D0; client=relay,ipv6; mail=; rcpt=; nrcpt=7:0; fails=0
X-ECS-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-ECS-MailScanner-ID: rAN9wBLC017788
Cc:, Martin Stiemerling <>,, Spencer Dawkins <>, "Eggert, Lars" <>, "Reinaldo Penno \(repenno\)" <>
Subject: Re: [tcmtf] Improved version (v8) of the TCM-TF charter draft
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Tunneling Compressed Multiplexed Traffic Flows \(TCMTF\) discussion list" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 10:00:54 -0000


On 22 Nov 2013, at 09:50, Jose Saldana <> wrote:

> Hi, Lars.
> During the BoF in Berlin, I got the impression that the problem was not the
> idea of TCM-TF itself, but some of the considered options (e.g. TCP). There
> were many people who raised their hands when asked about "willing to review
> docs or comment on mailing list". However, it seems that there are some
> people who are not convinced about the utility of TCM-TF. 
> So in order to reach consensus, let us keep on discussing and thinking. This
> is very enriching, since it is making us refine the scenarios where TCM-TF
> may have a real potential, and discard the ones in which it makes no sense.

I think it may be useful if the charter includes a deliverable which describes scenarios and requirements. At present, the scenarios and existing solutions are presented in points 1-4 of the charter, rather than being more formally documented as part of the WG activities. Such a document could explain why, from a requirements perspective, ROHC isn’t sufficient for the use cases envisioned. It could also clarify what’s in scope, e.g. point 2 mentions satellite while point 10 mentions satellite as possible future work. There’s been some good scenario discussion on the list recently which could all be captured.

What’s also missing is analysis of the impact on other protocols of deploying soemthing like this; this concern was raised at the previous BoF.