Re: [tcmtf] Improved version (v8) of the TCM-TF charter draft

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

Hi, Tim.

I think it is a good idea and we should definitely explain the scenarios in
more detail.

When you talk about a "deliverable which describes scenarios and
requirements," do you mean another draft? In the current "TCM-TF reference
model" draft, section 1.4 is about "Scenarios of application". Would it be
enough if we improve that section according to what we have discussed in the
last days?

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-saldana-tsvwg-tcmtf-05#section-1.4


Regarding the potential effects on other protocols, do you think we should
include that on the same draft?


Thanks a lot,

Jose


> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: Tim Chown [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Enviado el: sábado, 23 de noviembre de 2013 10:58
> Para: [e-mail]
> CC: Eggert, Lars; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Martin Stiemerling;
> Reinaldo Penno (repenno); Spencer Dawkins
> Asunto: Re: [tcmtf] Improved version (v8) of the TCM-TF charter draft
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On 22 Nov 2013, at 09:50, Jose Saldana <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> > Hi, Lars.
> >
> > During the BoF in Berlin, I got the impression that the problem was
> > not the idea of TCM-TF itself, but some of the considered options
> > (e.g. TCP). There were many people who raised their hands when asked
> > about "willing to review docs or comment on mailing list". However, it
> > seems that there are some people who are not convinced about the utility
> of TCM-TF.
> >
> > So in order to reach consensus, let us keep on discussing and
> > thinking. This is very enriching, since it is making us refine the
> > scenarios where TCM-TF may have a real potential, and discard the ones
in
> which it makes no sense.
> 
> I think it may be useful if the charter includes a deliverable which
describes
> scenarios and requirements. At present, the scenarios and existing
> solutions are presented in points 1-4 of the charter, rather than being
more
> formally documented as part of the WG activities. Such a document could
> explain why, from a requirements perspective, ROHC isn’t sufficient for
the
> use cases envisioned. It could also clarify what’s in scope, e.g. point 2
> mentions satellite while point 10 mentions satellite as possible future
> work. There’s been some good scenario discussion on the list recently
> which could all be captured.
> 
> What’s also missing is analysis of the impact on other protocols of
deploying
> soemthing like this; this concern was raised at the previous BoF.
> 
> Tim