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).
>  
> 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, in order to get their feedback.
>  
> Thanks in advance,
>  
> Jose Saldana
> _______________________________________________
> tcmtf mailing list
> tcmtf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcmtf