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

[Tim Chown <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

On 22 Nov 2013, at 09:50, Jose Saldana <[e-mail]> 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.

Tim