[tcmtf] Other potential specific uses of TCM-TF

"Jose Saldana" <jsaldana@unizar.es> Wed, 19 June 2013 14:28 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 830BD21F9C32 for <tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 07:28:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.478
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.478 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.120, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xW2MZcAYphyq for <tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 07:28:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ortiz.unizar.es (ortiz.unizar.es [155.210.1.52]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 388C721F9C35 for <tcmtf@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 07:28:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usuarioPC (gtc1pc12.cps.unizar.es [155.210.158.17]) by ortiz.unizar.es (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id r5JESgtN013154; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 16:28:42 +0200
From: "Jose Saldana" <jsaldana@unizar.es>
To: <tcmtf@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 16:28:48 +0200
Organization: Universidad de Zaragoza
Message-ID: <002801ce6cf9$500feac0$f02fc040$@unizar.es>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0029_01CE6D0A.13995700"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: Ac5s978oBaw7NG94S9C/A9wEOusDMQ==
Content-Language: es
X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd & Bogofilter
Cc: Tomaso.deCola@dlr.de, 'Spencer Dawkins' <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>, Matteo.Berioli@dlr.de, Martin Stiemerling <Martin.Stiemerling@neclab.eu>
Subject: [tcmtf] Other potential specific uses of TCM-TF
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, 19 Jun 2013 14:28:57 -0000

Hi all,

 

As you may know, if we get the BOF approved, we will have to discuss the WG
charter there. Currently these drafts are included in the WG charter (
<http://diec.unizar.es/~jsaldana/personal/ietf/tcmtf_charter_draft.pdf>
http://diec.unizar.es/~jsaldana/personal/ietf/tcmtf_charter_draft.pdf):

 

1- Draft "TCM-TF reference model": the different options which can be used
at each layer. 

2- Draft "TCM-TF negotiation protocol": setup/release a TCMTF session
including a negotiation mechanism to decide the options to use at each
layer.

3- Draft "TCM-TF recommendations": recommendations in order to decide which
packet flows can or can not be multiplexed and how.

 

For the charter discussion, it would be useful to have in mind (and perhaps
to mention) other potential specific uses of TCM-TF *that might contribute
unique requirements*.

 

- First of all, I think on the idea proposed by Tomaso and Matteo (DLR), as
said in n.10 of the current draft charter: "specific uses of TCMTF, such as
in wireless and satellite scenarios, could be considered, and it will be
studied whether modifications or extensions are required on the protocol".
It presents different and specific requirements.

 

- Do you think that instant messaging presents unique requirements with
respect to the normal use of TCM-TF? I don't think so, but perhaps someone
won't agree on this. In fact, instant messaging is already included in the
"TCM-TF recommendations" draft.

 

 

Any other ideas?

 

Jose