[tcmtf] Improvements in TCM-TF according to the received comments: Problem 4: Do vendors want standards in this space?
"Jose Saldana" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Wed, 05 February 2014 12:07 UTC
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69BC11A0103; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 04:07:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.735 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([220.127.116.11]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yFeF-nlElvBs; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 04:07:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ortiz.unizar.es (ortiz.unizar.es [18.104.22.168]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36B3D1A0105; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 04:07:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from usuarioPC (gtc1pc12.cps.unizar.es [22.214.171.124]) by ortiz.unizar.es (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id s15C7Cce011829; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 13:07:12 +0100
From: "Jose Saldana" <email@example.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 13:07:21 +0100
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_009E_01CF2273.3497C9E0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd & Bogofilter
Subject: [tcmtf] Improvements in TCM-TF according to the received comments: Problem 4: Do vendors want standards in this space?
List-Id: "Tunneling Compressed Multiplexed Traffic Flows \(TCMTF\) discussion list" <tcmtf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcmtf>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcmtf>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 12:07:22 -0000
Problem: Bob Briscoe: Do vendors want standards in this space? There are a lot of proprietary products; I would like to hear from other vendors who also would like to see this. We have asked in the mailing list about this, and it has been discussed in this thread: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcmtf/current/msg00480.html> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcmtf/current/msg00480.html This post from Wes summarizes the question: (.) there will be (and are) products available that attempt to optimize traffic in poorly documented and often poorly conceived ways. These can do more harm and have other mysterious effects on traffic than whatever this working group would create, since it would provide open specifications that could be developed and tested against the concerns of relevant layers and other IETF protocols, and problems and concerns could be addressed. If there are people willing to write the specs *and* people are also able to express interest in writing/deploying/selling code and products that use those specs, then we should certainly be doing this work in the IETF. This will allow: - multiple vendor boxes to interoperate on different sides of a challenged network/link (currently this is beyond the state of the art!) - simplified/standardized management of such boxes - well-understood behavior profiles of such middleboxes and their protocols algorithms If the IETF does not do this work, then I don't believe any of those three benefits/results are likely at all, and the (poor) status quo will continue. Jose
- [tcmtf] Improvements in TCM-TF according to the r… Jose Saldana