Re: [tcmtf] Support to create the working group for TCM-TF

[Wesley Eddy <[e-mail]>]

On 8/2/2013 1:58 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
> Hi, all,
> 
> FWIW, I don't understand why this is being requested of the TRANSPORT area.
> 
> Tunnels such as this ought to be the purview of INTAREA. I admit I
> remain confused as to why so many tunneling protocols are in ROUTING,
> but regardless neither is TRANSPORT.
> 


Hi Joe; here are a few reasons I can think of for justifying
transport as the area:

- the intent was not to invent new tunnel protocols, but to use
  existing ones as part of a stack
- all of the possible downsides that people brought up during
  the meeting are impacts to the transport protocol; so there is
  a tight coupling between transport configuration and what the
  recommendation for performing TCMTF on a flow should be
- many of the design considerations are directly related to things
  transport has dealt with in the past like delayed ACKs, ACK
  compression, buffer sizing, etc.
- PILC and PEP documentation were done in the transport area
- RoHC was done in the transport area
- PMTUD was in transport area (since you noted that this is a
  an additional concern)

In my opinion, if this is done, it should be in transport.

-- 
Wes Eddy
MTI Systems