Re: [tcmtf] BoF proposal for Berlin. Possible scheme

[<[e-mail]>]

Hi Jose,

If I'm not wrong IETF is also interested in energy saving issues (e.g., eman, roll WGs). I think that in our case it is also important to figure out whether we are talking about battery consumption on mobile devices, sensor nodes, etc. or on the power usage in routers and other intermediate nodes, which is a topic largely addressed in the field of green networking. This differentiation can be clarified according to the specific scenarios we are addressing, so that we can highlight whether tcmtf concepts are more beneficial for the end-nodes or for the network infrastructure. If the latter is the case, probably network operators like Telefonica and device manifacturers like Cisco (who both already contributed to the discussion in this list) can further motivate the need for a standard (or more than one).

Regards,

Tomaso

------------------------
Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR)
German Aerospace Center
Institute of Communications and Navigation | Satellite Networks | Oberpfaffenhofen | 82234 Wessling | Germany
Tomaso de Cola, Ph.D.
Telefon [phone] | Telefax  [phone] | [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
http://www.dlr.de/kn/institut/abteilungen/san

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Jose Saldana
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 10:58 AM
To: 'Mirko Sužnjević'
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [tcmtf] BoF proposal for Berlin. Possible scheme

Hi, Mirko.

The idea of energy savings is also interesting. People are getting more and more concerned with the energy consumption. Not only European Commission, but also smartphone and tablet manufacturers: the duration of the battery is critical there.

For example, "Qualcomm has developed a solution called Network Socket Request Manager (NSRM) for efficient application management. NSRM reduces smart phone signaling traffic by bundling application requests and intelligently delaying them. NSRM provides significant signaling reduction and also improves stand-by time."
http://www.qualcomm.com/media/documents/qualcomm-research-managing-background-data-traffic-mobile-devices

Perhaps we could also include this idea in the presentations. The benefits of packet grouping are 3 instead of 2:

1- Bandwidth saving
2- PPS reduction
3- Energy savings

What do you think? Will people at the IETF like energy savings?

Best regards,

Jose

De: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> [mailto:[e-mail]] En nombre de Mirko Sužnjevic
Enviado el: martes, 14 de mayo de 2013 10:08
Para: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Asunto: Re: [tcmtf] BoF proposal for Berlin. Possible scheme

Hello everybody,
Well I concur with the structure. I believe that the main thing is to do is to well formulate and explain the problem. We must prove in a coherent way that the problem we are addressing here is a problem worth putting effort to and worth solving. In short we must present all the benefits the  solving of our problem might bring. We more or less covered the network aspects of the TCMTF. Maybe one of the previously not emphasized things is the notion of energy savings which TCMTF implementation might bring.  I am not certain would such topics be interesting in the IETF, but it was interesting for the European Commission.
Ofcourse I will create the presentation regarding my part.
Cheers!
Mirko Suznjevic


From: Jose Saldana [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 12:25 PM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: Martin Stiemerling; Dan Wing; Mirko Sužnjević
Subject: BoF proposal for Berlin. Possible scheme

Hi all.

According to http://www.ietf.org/meeting/cutoff-dates-2013.html#IETF87, 2013-06-17 (Monday) is the cutoff date for BOF proposal requests to Area Directors. So we still have a month.

we could discuss a bit the possible scheme for the BoF proposal.

According to Martin's suggestion, we could begin the session with a teaser presentation describing what the exact issues are and what is the need for standardization.

So we could follow this structure:

1- Teaser presentation: describing the problem and the need for standardization

2- Charter: Documents to be generated within this potential WG

3- Draft A: Explaining the current TCMTF proposal

4- Draft B: Explaining the content of the draft about delay requirements, classification methods, etc.


Dan Wing could be in charge of (1). This would be good, since he is one of the authors of RFC4170 (the RFC we should "update" with TCMTF), so he knows the whole story. In addition, he has been in the TCMTF draft from the very beginning.

I could be in charge of (2), mainly explaining the charter.

Perhaps someone from Telefonica could be in charge of (3).

Mirko Suznjevic could present (4), since he is the first author.






What do you think? Any ideas?

Thanks a lot and best regards!,

Jose