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, 05 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 dont see a goal/milestone listed for an extension to or replacement for RFC 4170. Id prefer to see a much shorter more focused draft charter. Theres 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
- [tcmtf] TCMTF-Feedback about a possible BoF in Lo… Jose Saldana
- Re: [tcmtf] TCMTF-Feedback about a possible BoF i… MANUEL NUÑEZ SANZ
- Re: [tcmtf] TCMTF-Feedback about a possible BoF i… JUAN ANTONIO CASTELL LUCIA
- Re: [tcmtf] TCMTF-Feedback about a possible BoF i… Black, David
- Re: [tcmtf] TCMTF-Feedback about a possible BoF i… Jose Saldana
- Re: [tcmtf] TCMTF-Feedback about a possible BoF i… Luigi Iannone
- Re: [tcmtf] TCMTF-Feedback about a possible BoF i… Jose Saldana
- Re: [tcmtf] TCMTF-Feedback about a possible BoF i… Tina TSOU
- Re: [tcmtf] TCMTF-Feedback about a possible BoF i… FERNANDO PASCUAL BLANCO
- Re: [tcmtf] TCMTF-Feedback about a possible BoF i… Wesley Eddy
- Re: [tcmtf] TCMTF-Feedback about a possible BoF i… Mehmet Karaca (Alumni)
- Re: [tcmtf] TCMTF-Feedback about a possible BoF i… Ece Gelal