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

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

Dan,

The question is if we should include in the charter this objective: writing
a document about two things which have somewhat appeared during the
discussion:

- Negotiation mechanisms to decide the options at each layer (compression,
multiplexing and tunneling) between mux and demux. Perhaps the mux has ROHC,
ECRTP and IPHC, and the demux only has ECRTP and IPHC, so the two machines
will have to negotiate in order to decide which compression protocol use.

- dynamically establishing, modifying and releasing tunnels

Best regards,

Jose

> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: Dan Wing [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Enviado el: miércoles, 09 de enero de 2013 16:38
> Para: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Asunto: RE: [tcmtf] Questions regarding the TCMTF WG Chart proposal. 1
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
> > Of Jose Saldana
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2013 1:48 AM
> > To: [e-mail]
> > Subject: [tcmtf] Questions regarding the TCMTF WG Chart proposal. 1
> >
> > One question is if we should consider the creation of a specific draft
> > about signaling issues.
> 
> So, this is a 'problem statement', describing the problem we're trying to
solve
> (e.g., the application's tolerance for TCMTF-induced jitter)?
> Or, this is a document analyzing how we signal TCMTF capabilities to the
> other end?
> 
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> -d
> 
> 
> >
> >
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> >
> >
> > Jose
> >
> >