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

[Tim Chown <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jose,

On 25 Nov 2013, at 08:44, Jose Saldana <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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?

I think the text now in the reference model v9 in point 8 covers the comment about scenarios.  It could be a separate draft, it could be the same draft. 

I'm not sure it addresses the issue of the impact on other protocols. This may be an axis on the design space?  And then to at least document the impact on other protocols of adopting the proposed combination of mechanisms at the three layers to be described in the reference model.  Examples of these issues were raised at the IETF87 BoF, and may come up again in a future BoF if the charter doesn't include consideration of them.

Will the reference model summarise the requirements, as distilled from the scenarios that are deemed to be in scope?

Tim

> 
> 
> 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
> 
>