Re: [tcmtf] TCMTF-Feedback about a possible BoF in London

"Jose Saldana" <jsaldana@unizar.es> Sun, 05 January 2014 18:47 UTC

Return-Path: <jsaldana@unizar.es>
X-Original-To: tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D3821AF432; Sun, 5 Jan 2014 10:47:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.839
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.839 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xYt7BGvIti5T; Sun, 5 Jan 2014 10:47:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from isuela.unizar.es (isuela.unizar.es [155.210.1.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F16A1AF431; Sun, 5 Jan 2014 10:47:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jsaldanapc (126.Red-88-4-241.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net [88.4.241.126]) (authenticated bits=0) by isuela.unizar.es (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id s05IlL8a014472; Sun, 5 Jan 2014 19:47:26 +0100
From: "Jose Saldana" <jsaldana@unizar.es>
To: "'Black, David'" <david.black@emc.com>, <tcmtf@ietf.org>, <tsv-area@ietf.org>
References: <00c401cefd65$6e8ef570$4bace050$@unizar.es> <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE712026EF2FF8F@MX15A.corp.emc.com>
In-Reply-To: <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE712026EF2FF8F@MX15A.corp.emc.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2014 19:47:24 +0100
Message-ID: <005101cf0a46$95ca10f0$c15e32d0$@unizar.es>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0052_01CF0A4E.F7935AF0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQKm4iuy1T4jUNWcvPCI8e0mPkHF7QHB3wddmLi5h+A=
Content-Language: es
X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd & Bogofilter
Cc: 'Martin Stiemerling' <mls.ietf@googlemail.com>
Subject: Re: [tcmtf] TCMTF-Feedback about a possible BoF in London
X-BeenThere: tcmtf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Sun, 05 Jan 2014 18:47:50 -0000

David,

 

Thanks for your valuable comments!

 

I will improve the charter according to your suggestions and release a new
version.

 

Thanks again,

 

Jose

 

De: Black, David [mailto:david.black@emc.com] 
Enviado el: sábado, 04 de enero de 2014 4:05
Para: Jose Saldana; tcmtf@ietf.org; tsv-area@ietf.org
CC: Martin Stiemerling; Black, David
Asunto: RE: TCMTF-Feedback about a possible BoF in London

 

A second BoF has the explicit goal of forming a WG, as a third BoF

is not permitted.  In that regard, the new charter seems long and

somewhat lacking in focus.  Two key things I look for in a proposed

charter are what problem (or problems) the proposed WG is looking to

solve and an initial approach to the problem or problems.

 

In the new draft charter, the problem statement appears to be in

paragraph 4 with paragraph 1 providing important background.  The

focus of the work appears to be on extending TCRTP (RFC 4170) to

UDP and to include new compression protocols.  In contrast, I have

a hard time discerning the initial approach from the new draft charter.

 

In light of this, there are a few things that I wish the new

draft charter had definitive proposals for:

 

      a) Whether to replace RFC 4170 vs. write a new RFC (could be

            UDP-only or UDP + RTP/UDP) as a complement to RFC 4170.

      b) Whether to use ECRTP, ROHCv2 (RFC 5225) and/or IPHC (RFC 2507 ?).

            Non-use of ECRTP would be a major change to 4170, and I

wonder about IPHC, as opposed to the ROHCv2 profiles.

      c) Analogies to b) for the Mux and Tunnel layers of the stack.

 

Overall, it looks like the first task of the WG is to select the protocol

stack to standardize - I have misgivings about that, and would prefer to

see a concrete proposal in a crisp charter that ran along the following

lines, naming the protocols to be used:

 

1) RFC 4170 does X, and needs the following changes/additions: X, Y, Z.

2) The WG will replace RFC 4170 with a new RFC that contains: A, B, C.

 

A specific proposal or proposals for the protocol stack or stacks

would also narrow the scope of item 9 in the charter on the negotiation

mechanism.  I also don’t see a goal/milestone listed for an extension to

or replacement for RFC 4170.

 

I’d prefer to see a much shorter more focused draft charter.  There’s a

bunch of background material that does not seem crucial to the charter,

starting w/paragraphs 2 and 3.

 

Thanks,
--David

 

From: tsv-area [mailto:tsv-area-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jose Saldana
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2013 4:26 AM
To: tcmtf@ietf.org; tsv-area@ietf.org
Cc: Martin Stiemerling
Subject: TCMTF-Feedback about a possible BoF in London

 

Hi all,

 

After the feedback received in the BoF in Berlin, we have updated the TCM-TF
charter and the two drafts. We have tried to solve all the problems raised
during the session.

 

Our plan is to request a new BoF in London next March, so we would like to
know your opinion about these two questions:

 

 

1.  Is the new, reduced scope of TCM-TF suitable to form a working group?

 

 

2. We would like to kindly ask people who think that a TCM-TF Working group
should be formed, to come forward and send an e-mail to the
tsv-area@ietf.org  mailing list stating it.

 

 

This feedback will allow us to get a better idea of the convenience of a
BoF.

 

The new charter is here:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcmtf/current/msg00465.html

This is the old one (presented in Berlin):
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcmtf/current/msg00368.html

 

In these links you can see the differences between the new versions of the
drafts and the old ones:

 
<http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-saldana-tsvwg-tcmtf-06.txt&url2=dr
aft-saldana-tsvwg-tcmtf-05.txt>
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-saldana-tsvwg-tcmtf-06.txt&url2=dra
ft-saldana-tsvwg-tcmtf-05.txt

http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-suznjevic-tsvwg-mtd-tcmtf-02.txt
<http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-suznjevic-tsvwg-mtd-tcmtf-02.txt&u
rl2=draft-suznjevic-tsvwg-mtd-tcmtf-01.txt>
&url2=draft-suznjevic-tsvwg-mtd-tcmtf-01.txt

 

 

The main improvements are:

 

- TCP optimization has been removed

- The classification of the scenarios has been refined and improved. Some of
them have been removed

- A section about energy consumption has been added to the main draft

- A reference to the potential problem of the MTU and packet loss has been
added

- The problem of the added delays is studied in detail in the second draft

 

- The improvements of the charter are summarized here:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcmtf/current/msg00466.html

 

 

Best regards,

 

Jose