Re: [tcmtf] BoF proposal for Berlin. Showing the interest of the Industry

["Jose Saldana" <[e-mail]>]

Another idea we should include in the first presentation (why do we need to
standardize TCMTF) is this:

- A standard already exists (RFC4170), written by three people from Cisco in
2005.

- However, this standard only considers a single option at each layer:
	- ECRTP for header compression, so only services based on RTP are
considered
	- PPPMux for multiplexing
	- L2TP for tunneling

- From 2005 to now:
	- a significant effort has been devoted in the IETF for
standardizing ROHC (which performs better than ECRTP in many scenarios)
	- a lot of applications generating long-term flows with high rates
of non-RTP small packets have emerged

- So why not widening TCRTP’s scope in order to:
	- Allow other traffics different from RTP
	- Allow these new developed header compression techniques

Do you find this coherent?

Jose

> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Enviado el: miércoles, 15 de mayo de 2013 11:10
> Para: [e-mail]
> CC: "'Mirko Su¾njeviæ'"; [e-mail]
> Asunto: Re: [tcmtf] BoF proposal for Berlin. Possible scheme
> 
> My guess is that many people at the IETF would "like" to see people say
they
> plan to implement for a product, or that they plan to devote significant
effort
> to seeing the standard matches their need for a particular use case (e.g.
> operators or equipment vendors). This can be a strong indication that
there is
> a need for a standard.  This can be in a slide, or at the Mic or on the
list, slides,
> etc...
> 
> If it's just researchers wanting toi agree a spec that may also be OK, but
then
> it could be an IRTF activity that comes up with an experimental spec for
> people to evaluate.
> 
> Gorry
> 
> > Hi, Mirko.
> >
> >
> >
> > The idea of energy savings is also interesting. People are getting
> > more and more concerned with the energy consumption. Not only
> European
> > Commission, but also smartphone and tablet manufacturers: the duration
> > of the battery is critical there.
> >
> >
> >
> > For example, "Qualcomm has developed a solution called Network Socket
> > Request Manager (NSRM) for efficient application management. NSRM
> > reduces smart phone signaling traffic by bundling application requests
> > and intelligently delaying them. NSRM provides significant signaling
> > reduction and also improves stand-by time."
> >
> >
> > <http://www.qualcomm.com/media/documents/qualcomm-research-
> managing-ba
> > ckgrou
> > nd-data-traffic-mobile-devices>
> > http://www.qualcomm.com/media/documents/qualcomm-research-
> managing-bac
> > kgroun
> > d-data-traffic-mobile-devices
> >
> >
> >
> > Perhaps we could also include this idea in the presentations. The
> > benefits of packet grouping are 3 instead of 2:
> >
> >
> >
> > 1- Bandwidth saving
> >
> > 2- PPS reduction
> >
> > 3- Energy savings
> >
> >
> >
> > What do you think? Will people at the IETF like energy savings?
> >
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> >
> >
> > Jose
> >
> >
> >
> > De: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] En nombre
> > de Mirko Su¾njevic Enviado el: martes, 14 de mayo de 2013 10:08
> > Para: [e-mail]
> > Asunto: Re: [tcmtf] BoF proposal for Berlin. Possible scheme
> >
> >
> >
> > Hello everybody,
> >
> > Well I concur with the structure. I believe that the main thing is to
> > do is to well formulate and explain the problem. We must prove in a
> > coherent way that the problem we are addressing here is a problem
> > worth putting effort to and worth solving. In short we must present
> > all the benefits the  solving of our problem might bring. We more or
> > less covered the network aspects of the TCMTF. Maybe one of the
> > previously not emphasized things is the notion of energy savings which
> > TCMTF implementation might bring.  I am not certain would such topics
> > be interesting in the IETF, but it was interesting for the European
> > Commission.
> >
> > Ofcourse I will create the presentation regarding my part.
> >
> >
> > Cheers!
> >
> > Mirko Suznjevic
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Jose Saldana [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 12:25 PM
> > To: [e-mail]
> > Cc: Martin Stiemerling; Dan Wing; Mirko Su¾njeviæ
> > Subject: BoF proposal for Berlin. Possible scheme
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi all.
> >
> >
> >
> > According to
> > http://www.ietf.org/meeting/cutoff-dates-2013.html#IETF87,
> > 2013-06-17 (Monday) is the cutoff date for BOF proposal requests to
> > Area Directors. So we still have a month.
> >
> >
> >
> > we could discuss a bit the possible scheme for the BoF proposal.
> >
> >
> >
> > According to Martin's suggestion, we could begin the session with a
> > teaser presentation describing what the exact issues are and what is
> > the need for standardization.
> >
> >
> >
> > So we could follow this structure:
> >
> >
> >
> > 1- Teaser presentation: describing the problem and the need for
> > standardization
> >
> >
> >
> > 2- Charter: Documents to be generated within this potential WG
> >
> >
> >
> > 3- Draft A: Explaining the current TCMTF proposal
> >
> >
> >
> > 4- Draft B: Explaining the content of the draft about delay
> > requirements, classification methods, etc.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Dan Wing could be in charge of (1). This would be good, since he is
> > one of the authors of RFC4170 (the RFC we should "update" with TCMTF),
> > so he knows the whole story. In addition, he has been in the TCMTF
> > draft from the very beginning.
> >
> >
> >
> > I could be in charge of (2), mainly explaining the charter.
> >
> >
> >
> > Perhaps someone from Telefonica could be in charge of (3).
> >
> >
> >
> > Mirko Suznjevic could present (4), since he is the first author.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > What do you think? Any ideas?
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks a lot and best regards!,
> >
> >
> >
> > Jose
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > tcmtf mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcmtf
> >