IETF Logo Mail Archive

[tcmtf] Questions regarding the TCMTF WG Chart proposal. 1

"Jose Saldana" <jsaldana@unizar.es> Wed, 09 January 2013 09:47 UTC

Return-Path: <jsaldana@unizar.es>
X-Original-To: tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A099B21F8556 for <tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Jan 2013 01:47:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z9ChNQcyQFco for <tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Jan 2013 01:47:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from isuela.unizar.es (isuela.unizar.es [155.210.1.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A01DE21F852C for <tcmtf@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Jan 2013 01:47:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from usuarioPC (gtc1pc12.cps.unizar.es [155.210.158.17]) by isuela.unizar.es (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id r099khFq022705 for <tcmtf@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Jan 2013 10:47:43 +0100
From: "Jose Saldana" <jsaldana@unizar.es>
To: <tcmtf@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 10:47:47 +0100
Organization: Universidad de Zaragoza
Message-ID: <007201cdee4e$61e4d960$25ae8c20$@unizar.es>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0073_01CDEE56.C3A94160"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: Ac3uTJFFLbx+z32QTGuvtXZ79XI24Q==
Content-Language: es
X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd & Bogofilter
Subject: [tcmtf] Questions regarding the TCMTF WG Chart proposal. 1
X-BeenThere: tcmtf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: jsaldana@unizar.es
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: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 09:47:58 -0000

One question is if we should consider the creation of a specific draft about
signaling issues. In paragraph 5, I have written the idea, but I don't
currently know if it is necessary at this stage: "a mechanism to negotiate
which concrete option would they use in each layer".

 

My opinion: We could first focus on drafts (A) and (B), and later re-charter
the WG if necessary in order to consider this other document.

 

What do you think?

 

Jose

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email