Re: [tcmtf] BoF proposal for Berlin. Possible scheme

"Jose Saldana" <jsaldana@unizar.es> Mon, 20 May 2013 14:59 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 65F4521F85D6 for <tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 May 2013 07:59:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.437
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.437 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.161, 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 Cb6pwJeFrzH9 for <tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 May 2013 07:59:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ortiz.unizar.es (ortiz.unizar.es [155.210.1.52]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A637821F8265 for <tcmtf@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 May 2013 07:59:28 -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 r4KExMdL023014; Mon, 20 May 2013 16:59:22 +0200
From: "Jose Saldana" <jsaldana@unizar.es>
To: <tcmtf@ietf.org>
References: <008201ce4fc4$22b8e510$682aaf30$@unizar.es>
In-Reply-To: <008201ce4fc4$22b8e510$682aaf30$@unizar.es>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 16:59:26 +0200
Organization: Universidad de Zaragoza
Message-ID: <002a01ce556a$9f7bd430$de737c90$@unizar.es>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002B_01CE557B.6305B5A0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQMEIpyho0KjN7tC+jPQgybcWLqFipaijADw
Content-Language: es
X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd & Bogofilter
Cc: DIEGO LOPEZ GARCIA <diego@tid.es>, 'Martin Stiemerling' <Martin.Stiemerling@neclab.eu>
Subject: Re: [tcmtf] BoF proposal for Berlin. Possible scheme
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: Mon, 20 May 2013 14:59:34 -0000

I have some (good) news regarding the presentations. Diego R. Lopez agrees
to be in charge of the second presentation. So I would switch to the third
one.

 

1- Teaser presentation: describing the problem and the need for
standardization. Dan Wing, Cisco

 

2- Charter: Documents to be generated within this potential WG. Diego R.
Lopez, Telefonica

 

3- Draft A: Explaining the current TCMTF proposal. Jose Saldana, University
of Zaragoza

 

4- Draft B: Explaining the content of the draft about delay requirements,
classification methods, etc. Mirko Suznjevic, University of Zagreb

 

(5-  Specific uses of TCMTF in wireless and satellite scenarios) To be
confirmed

 

Best regards,

 

Jose

 

De: tcmtf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:tcmtf-bounces@ietf.org] En nombre de Jose
Saldana
Enviado el: lunes, 13 de mayo de 2013 12:25
Para: tcmtf@ietf.org
CC: Mirko Sužnjević; Dan Wing; Martin Stiemerling
Asunto: [tcmtf] BoF proposal for Berlin. Possible scheme

 

Hi all.

 

According to  <http://www.ietf.org/meeting/cutoff-dates-2013.html#IETF87>
http://www.ietf.org/meeting/cutoff-dates-2013.html#IETF87, 2013-06-17
(Monday) is the cutoff date for BOF proposal requests to Area Directors. So
we still have a month.

 

we could discuss a bit the possible scheme for the BoF proposal.

 

According to Martin's suggestion, we could begin the session with a teaser
presentation describing what the exact issues are and what is the need for
standardization.

 

So we could follow this structure:

 

1- Teaser presentation: describing the problem and the need for
standardization

 

2- Charter: Documents to be generated within this potential WG

 

3- Draft A: Explaining the current TCMTF proposal

 

4- Draft B: Explaining the content of the draft about delay requirements,
classification methods, etc.

 

 

Dan Wing could be in charge of (1). This would be good, since he is one of
the authors of RFC4170 (the RFC we should "update" with TCMTF), so he knows
the whole story. In addition, he has been in the TCMTF draft from the very
beginning.

 

I could be in charge of (2), mainly explaining the charter.

 

Perhaps someone from Telefonica could be in charge of (3).

 

Mirko Suznjevic could present (4), since he is the first author.

 

 

 

What do you think? Any ideas?

 

Thanks a lot and best regards!,

 

Jose