Re: [tcmtf] Next steps with TCM-TF

"Jose Saldana" <jsaldana@unizar.es> Tue, 10 September 2013 14:14 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 3156C21F9D9A for <tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 07:14:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.091
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.091 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.093, BAYES_50=0.001, 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 oF1Ca-qF6pl3 for <tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 07:14:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from isuela.unizar.es (isuela.unizar.es [155.210.1.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 693DB21F8EB2 for <tcmtf@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 07:14:26 -0700 (PDT)
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 r8AEEMC2016102; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 16:14:22 +0200
From: Jose Saldana <jsaldana@unizar.es>
To: 'Manuel Gorius' <gorius@nt.uni-saarland.de>
References: <017d01cead79$25240a10$6f6c1e30$@unizar.es> <AA275F59-30E3-4671-B1A5-3E808DC73EE0@nt.uni-saarland.de>
In-Reply-To: <AA275F59-30E3-4671-B1A5-3E808DC73EE0@nt.uni-saarland.de>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 16:14:25 +0200
Organization: Universidad de Zaragoza
Message-ID: <002d01ceae30$0e3460e0$2a9d22a0$@unizar.es>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002E_01CEAE40.D1BE1B40"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQHuvPs5z3YNAt6hhH28PKho2tIgMgDdQFaPmXf7wUA=
Content-Language: es
X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd & Bogofilter
Cc: tcmtf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [tcmtf] Next steps with 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: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 14:14:34 -0000

Manuel,

 

It sounds good. Could you please provide the link to some documentation
(e.g. a paper, a report) about the "predictably reliable" error control
scheme?

 

Thanks!

 

Jose

 

De: Manuel Gorius [mailto:gorius@nt.uni-saarland.de] 
Enviado el: martes, 10 de septiembre de 2013 14:30
Para: jsaldana@unizar.es
CC: tcmtf@ietf.org
Asunto: Re: [tcmtf] Next steps with TCM-TF

 

Dear Jose,

 

It was nice to follow the ideas brought up during the TCM-TF BoF. I think
that a related standard might become important in near future since besides
online gaming there is also a plenty of upcoming interactive and sensor
applications that would be sending small parameter updates (think of smart
factory applications for instance or even e-health services). I highly
appreciate the decision to move the focus away from TCP. Given TCP's limited
efficiency for interactive applications, the concerns of potential impact on
its performance should not put an innovation bottleneck in front of new
ideas improving transport efficiency.

 

During the BoF session the question of transport reliability for such
multiplexed packet flows was raised. This would be a point where our lab
could contribute. We developed a "predictably reliable" error control scheme
that operates under strict delay constraints. The scheme would particularly
benefit from the larger packets and the higher aggregate data rate of the
multiplexed packet flows. If such error control would be considered
beneficial in TCM-TF, I'd be happy to become active.

 

Best regards,

          Manuel Gorius

 

On 09.09.2013, at 18:25, Jose Saldana <jsaldana@unizar.es> wrote:





Dear all,

 

As you may know, we had a TCM-TF BoF in IETF87 Berlin (
<http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/87/minutes/minutes-87-tcmtf>
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/87/minutes/minutes-87-tcmtf).

 

As a result of the BoF, it was clear (IMHO) that there is some interest on
the topic. There were a number of people who thought that a WG should be
created, and several people also volunteered for reviewing documents.

 

However, in the BoF it was also clear that there are some concerns that have
to be issued before chartering. The main one is the interaction between TCM
optimization and TCP mechanisms. Since TCP controls its rate depending on
the RTT, the addition of a multiplexing delay may modify and even harm TCP
behavior.

 

As a consequence, we are going to redefine the Charter, removing the
optimization of TCP. So RTP/UDP and UDP will be the considered options for
optimization.

 

We would like to get more people involved in the discussion, so we would
like to invite those who actively participate on Transport Area discussion
to join the mailing list  <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcmtf>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcmtf, in order to get their feedback.

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Jose Saldana

_______________________________________________
tcmtf mailing list
 <mailto:tcmtf@ietf.org> tcmtf@ietf.org
 <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcmtf>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcmtf