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

"Jose Saldana" <jsaldana@unizar.es> Mon, 25 November 2013 08:44 UTC

Return-Path: <jsaldana@unizar.es>
X-Original-To: tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A93D1ACC87; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 00:44:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.202
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9rU9Iv_TD5i2; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 00:44:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from isuela.unizar.es (isuela.unizar.es [155.210.1.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DA151ACC81; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 00:44:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from usuarioPC (gtc1pc12.cps.unizar.es [155.210.158.17]) by isuela.unizar.es (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id rAP8iP0M002171; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 09:44:25 +0100
From: "Jose Saldana" <jsaldana@unizar.es>
To: "'Tim Chown'" <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
References: <008c01cee5e1$9caa4590$d5fed0b0$@unizar.es> <CEB23B7B.663B%repenno@cisco.com> <01ee01cee6da$b05eb9a0$111c2ce0$@unizar.es> <6639F5EC-B9AE-471A-BEAA-D25D21526F21@netapp.com> <01da01cee768$42926af0$c7b740d0$@unizar.es> <3CD00280-AC5F-424C-9443-07064B2AE288@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <EMEW3|03e3a08ad2910f9d659aa138fccb1644pAM9wB03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|3CD00280-AC5F-424C-9443-07064B2AE288@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <EMEW3|03e3a08ad2910f9d659aa138fccb1644pAM9wB03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|3CD00280-AC5F-424C-9443-07064B2AE288@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 09:44:33 +0100
Organization: Universidad de Zaragoza
Message-ID: <00c301cee9ba$90d91de0$b28b59a0$@unizar.es>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQI/pFXgt4LgH+pyHEEB6KKfTqM8zAIc4popAgX21NgA+hAoBAKlUkKdAnqSMsoCjY1aepjt174w
Content-Language: es
X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd & Bogofilter
Cc: tcmtf@ietf.org, 'Martin Stiemerling' <mls.ietf@googlemail.com>, tsv-area@ietf.org, 'Spencer Dawkins' <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [tcmtf] Improved version (v8) of the TCM-TF charter draft
X-BeenThere: tcmtf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: jsaldana@unizar.es
List-Id: "Tunneling Compressed Multiplexed Traffic Flows \(TCMTF\) discussion list" <tcmtf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tcmtf>, <mailto:tcmtf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcmtf/>
List-Post: <mailto:tcmtf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcmtf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcmtf>, <mailto:tcmtf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 08:44:35 -0000

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:tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk]
> Enviado el: sábado, 23 de noviembre de 2013 10:58
> Para: jsaldana@unizar.es
> CC: Eggert, Lars; tcmtf@ietf.org; tsv-area@ietf.org; 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 <jsaldana@unizar.es> 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