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

["Dan Wing" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jose Saldana [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2013 8:08 AM
> To: 'Dan Wing'; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [tcmtf] Questions regarding the TCMTF WG Chart proposal. 1
> 
> 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.

We need that -- it is capabilities negotiation.  It is needed because
the protocol will fail if one side mistakenly thinks the other side
has certain functionality, and because we will want to add some fancy
new compression in the year 2020 and will need to negotiate it.

I don't think it needs to be a separate milestone or a separate 
document, though.

> - dynamically establishing, modifying and releasing tunnels

-d

> 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
> > >
> > >