Re: [tcmtf] Improved version (v8) of the TCM-TF charter draft

Julián Fernández-Navajas <navajas@unizar.es> Fri, 22 November 2013 18:31 UTC

Return-Path: <navajas@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 E9D9A1ADFE8 for <tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 10:31:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.426
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.426 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.525, 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 s1xVzJMnP6sr for <tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 10:31:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from isuela.unizar.es (isuela.unizar.es [155.210.1.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 555231ADBE5 for <tcmtf@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 10:31:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [155.210.156.37] (tele3.cps.unizar.es [155.210.156.37]) (authenticated bits=0) by isuela.unizar.es (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id rAMIVIkC002026 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <tcmtf@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 19:31:19 +0100
Message-ID: <528FA2F5.1050809@unizar.es>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 19:31:17 +0100
From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Juli=E1n_Fern=E1ndez-Navajas?= <navajas@unizar.es>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tcmtf@ietf.org
References: <008c01cee5e1$9caa4590$d5fed0b0$@unizar.es> <CEB23B7B.663B%repenno@cisco.com> <01ee01cee6da$b05eb9a0$111c2ce0$@unizar.es> <6639F5EC-B9AE-471A-BEAA-D25D21526F21@netapp.com> <01da01cee768$42926af0$c7b740d0$@unizar.es> <03801D31-422D-4F33-9098-B6DE8FC31C77@netapp.com>
In-Reply-To: <03801D31-422D-4F33-9098-B6DE8FC31C77@netapp.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd & Bogofilter
Subject: Re: [tcmtf] Improved version (v8) of the TCM-TF charter draft
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: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 18:31:31 -0000

Hi all,

I want to show my point of view about this sentence: "I fundamentally 
believe in deploying bandwidth instead of deploying boxes that manage 
bandwidth scarcity."
Perhaps the deploy of bandwidth is preferred instead the TCM-TF but both 
of them are usefull. I don't understand why TCM-TF should be discarded 
because other alternative is better in more situations (but not in all 
situations).

Julián


El 22/11/2013 16:41, Eggert, Lars escribió:
> I fundamentally believe in deploying bandwidth instead of deploying boxes that manage bandwidth scarcity.