Re: [tcmtf] Support to create the working group for TCM-TF

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

I agree with Wes. The question of the area was discussed one year ago (see
slides 24-26 of this presentation at IETF83:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/slides/slides-83-tsvwg-0.pdf). There have
been no objections about this point during the last 16 months. The drafts
are in tsvwg. The BOF was organized by the Transport Area, and nobody
objected.

So IMHO, this is clear.

Thanks,

Jose 

-----Mensaje original-----
De: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] En nombre de
Wesley Eddy
Enviado el: sábado, 03 de agosto de 2013 4:05
Para: Joe Touch
CC: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Asunto: Re: [tcmtf] Support to create the working group for TCM-TF

On 8/2/2013 1:58 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
> Hi, all,
> 
> FWIW, I don't understand why this is being requested of the TRANSPORT
area.
> 
> Tunnels such as this ought to be the purview of INTAREA. I admit I 
> remain confused as to why so many tunneling protocols are in ROUTING, 
> but regardless neither is TRANSPORT.
> 


Hi Joe; here are a few reasons I can think of for justifying transport as
the area:

- the intent was not to invent new tunnel protocols, but to use
  existing ones as part of a stack
- all of the possible downsides that people brought up during
  the meeting are impacts to the transport protocol; so there is
  a tight coupling between transport configuration and what the
  recommendation for performing TCMTF on a flow should be
- many of the design considerations are directly related to things
  transport has dealt with in the past like delayed ACKs, ACK
  compression, buffer sizing, etc.
- PILC and PEP documentation were done in the transport area
- RoHC was done in the transport area
- PMTUD was in transport area (since you noted that this is a
  an additional concern)

In my opinion, if this is done, it should be in transport.

--
Wes Eddy
MTI Systems
_______________________________________________
tcmtf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcmtf