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

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Jose,

First, I encourage you to revisit the logic in your slides presented last year regarding your primary rationale (at that time) for being in TSV - i.e., that TCM-TF has endpoint state, and E2E belongs in transport. That's simply incorrect; there are many protocols with state and endpoints, and E2E principles should be applied throughout the IETF.

Second, I encourage you to revise your docs and charter to be more clear about the goals of your work in terms of what you intend to create vs. use/configure, e.g., a tunnel, stateful compression, etc.

Finally, I encourage you to explore SEAL more carefully as a tunnel mechanism. It incorporates most of what we have learned about how NOT to do tunnels, much better than any other IETF or de-facto tunnel mechanism (*especially* GRE, FWIW).

In the future, I sincerely hope that the scope of a BOF will be an active area of discussion at the time new multi-area work is introduced. This is NOT the sole purview of the ADs.

Joe

On Aug 6, 2013, at 12:53 AM, Jose Saldana <[e-mail]> wrote:

>> -----Mensaje original-----
>> De: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] En nombre de
>> Joe Touch
>> Enviado el: lunes, 05 de agosto de 2013 20:19
>> Para: Jose Saldana
>> CC: 'Wesley Eddy'; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>> [e-mail]
>> Asunto: Re: [tcmtf] Support to create the working group for TCM-TF
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 8/3/2013 1:43 AM, Jose Saldana wrote:
>>> 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.
>> 
>> One area "on the table" during the time of a BOF is whether the area is
>> appropriate. It shouldn't be considered a "done deal" until it's a WG.
>> 
>> Further, there's clearly a lot of continuing confusion about what this
> work
>> constitutes.
>> 
>> I'm a bit surprised that nobody else spoke up a year ago in Paris; the
> logic in
>> slide 26 is deeply flawed. By that logic, all tunnels are E2E and thus all
> tunnels
>> belong in transport. Regardless, the list is where these discussions
> should
>> happen, and I didn't see any such discussion raised here.
>> 
>> Finally, you really ought to look at SEAL.
>> 
>> Joe
>> 
> 
> All,
> 
> First of all, thanks for your feedback.
> 
> The idea of TCM-TF is to include different options at each layer (header
> compression, multiplexing and tunneling). The tunneling layer currently
> considers L2TP, GRE and MPLS. In a first approach, I don't see any problem
> on considering other tunneling technologies, as SEAL, if we find them
> useful.
> 
> Regarding the problem of the Area, this is my summary:
> 
> - Since TCM includes protocols from different layers, it is really difficult
> to assign it to an area. It involves a number of areas, but in fact it must
> belong to one of them. The possibilities were RAI, Internet and Transport.
> - We first tried with AVTCore (RAI area) and the answer was "I don't think
> this proposal really belongs in the WG, most likely not this area even"
> (Magnus W).
> - So we had two options: Internet and Transport. We thought Transport could
> fit, and we tried there and we were accepted.
> - We have been for one year and a half in the Transport Area Working Group,
> tsvwg (the first version of the draft was submitted Feb 16 2012,
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-saldana-tsvwg-tcmtf/history/).
> - So the people who have participated in the discussion are mainly in the
> Transport Area.
> - One year ago (July 8 2012), a specific tcmtf mailing list was created.
> This had an advantage: we could specifically discuss about tcmtf. But it
> also had a drawback: only people subscribed to the list have participated in
> the discussion. As a consequence, in the BoF, people not subscribed to the
> list raised many concerns that had not appeared at all in the discussion
> before.
> 
> And this is my opinion:
> 
> - If we try to change to Internet Area now, we would have to start from
> scratch after 1.5 years: explaining everything again to people in that area,
> looking for a WG in the Internet Area, talking with the ADs, etc.
> - So let's be practical and assume that Transport Area can be a good place
> for this. We have even organized a BoF in the Transport Area, and no one had
> any concern with that. It has been a long way, so we should not rethink
> everything again.
> - Of course, let's try to get people from other areas involved. We need
> them.
> 
> Thanks a lot,
> 
> Jose