Re: [tcmtf] TCMTF: Documents to be generated. Small modification

[FERNANDO PASCUAL BLANCO <[e-mail]>]

It sounds very good!

Saludos,

Fernando Pascual Blanco
Telefónica Global Resources
Network Automation and Dynamization
TECHNOLOGY PEOPLE GROUP
F [phone]
M [phone]
[e-mail]




On 07/06/13 10:51, "Jose Saldana" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>You are right, Fernando. The question is that in the end everything
>travels
>in a tunnel. But this may sound confusing, since tunneling is just one of
>the layers. What about this?
>
>We can talk about a "TCMTF session" or a "TCMTF communication" instead of
>"TCMTF tunnel".
>
>I prefer "TCMTF session":
>
>- TCMTF - negotiation protocol:
>       - a mechanism to setup/release a *TCMTF session* between a
>multiplexer and a de-multiplexer, including the negotiation mechanism to
>decide the options to use at each layer (header compression, multiplexing
>and tunneling)
>
>Which one do you prefer? Other names?
>
>Thanks!
>
>Jose
>
>> -----Mensaje original-----
>> De: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] En nombre de
>> FERNANDO PASCUAL BLANCO
>> Enviado el: viernes, 07 de junio de 2013 9:56
>> Para: [e-mail]; Diego R. Lopez; 'Mirko Sužnjević'
>> CC: [e-mail]
>> Asunto: Re: [tcmtf] TCMTF: Documents to be generated. Small modification
>>
>> Hi Jose,
>>
>>         I have doubts about the description of the second document, why
>are
>> you focusing the description on the tunneling layer? I understand that
>there
>> will be two options: a dialog (protocol) to negotiate every option at
>>each
>> layer or three dialogs to negotiate each layer, but in that case the
>tunnel
>> layer will not be different from others. What do you think about a
>description
>> less tunnel oriented?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Fernando Pascual Blanco
>> Telefónica Global Resources
>> Network Automation and Dynamization
>> TECHNOLOGY PEOPLE GROUP
>> F [phone]
>> M [phone]
>> [e-mail]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 07/06/13 09:37, "Jose Saldana" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> >Ok then.
>> >
>> >We can use these document names in the new version of the Charter (I
>> >will try to rewrite it by Tuesday):
>> >
>> >- TCMTF - reference model:
>> >       the protocol stack and scenarios. It should be said that each
>> >protocol at each layer will use its own signaling mechanisms.
>> >       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-saldana-tsvwg-tcmtf/
>> >
>> >
>> >- TCMTF - negotiation protocol:
>> >       - a mechanism to setup/release a TCMTF tunnel between a
>> >multiplexer and a de-multiplexer, including the negotiation mechanism
>> >to decide the options to use at each layer
>> >
>> >
>> >- TCMTF - recommendations:
>> >       useful recommendations in order to decide which packet flows can
>> >or can not be multiplexed and how. A list of available traffic
>> >classification methods which can be used for identification of the
>> >service or application to which a particular flow belongs, as well as
>> >recommendations of the maximum delay and jitter to be added depending
>> >of the identified service or application.
>> >       http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-suznjevic-tsvwg-mtd-tcmtf/
>> >
>> >
>> >Any comments?
>> >
>> >Jose
>> >
>> >> -----Mensaje original-----
>> >> De: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] En nombre
>> >> de Diego R. Lopez Enviado el: jueves, 06 de junio de 2013 15:15
>> >> Para: <[e-mail]>
>> >> CC: <[e-mail]>rg>; Mirko Sužnjević; FERNANDO PASCUAL BLANCO
>> >> Asunto: Re: [tcmtf] TCMTF: Documents to be generated. Small
>> >> modification
>> >>
>> >> Hmmm... The necessary outcome of the negotiation is the setup. I'd
>> >> keep the shorter name.
>> >>
>> >> Be goode,
>> >>
>> >> On 6 Jun 2013, at 15:05 , Jose Saldana wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > One question:
>> >> >
>> >> > The new second draft should include:
>> >> >
>> >> > - The negotiation
>> >> > - The setup/release a TCMTF tunnel between a mux and a demux
>> >> >
>> >> > Do you think "TCMTF - negotiation protocol" also includes the
>> >> > second
>> >idea?
>> >> >
>> >> > Would it be better "TCMTF - negotiation and setup" ?
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks!
>> >> >
>> >> > Jose
>> >> >
>> >> >> -----Mensaje original-----
>> >> >> De: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] En
>> >> >> nombre de Mirko Sužnjevic Enviado el: jueves, 06 de junio de 2013
>> >> >> 14:32
>> >> >> Para: FERNANDO PASCUAL BLANCO; [e-mail]
>> >> >> Asunto: Re: [tcmtf] TCMTF: Documents to be generated. Small
>> >> >> modification
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yes i think that is better.
>> >> >> Mirko
>> >> >>
>> >> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> >> From: FERNANDO PASCUAL BLANCO [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> >> >> Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2013 1:53 PM
>> >> >> To: Mirko Sužnjević; [e-mail]
>> >> >> Subject: Re: [tcmtf] TCMTF: Documents to be generated. Small
>> >> >> modification
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And what about:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> TCMTF - negotiation protocol
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Do you found it more descriptive?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Regards,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Fernando Pascual Blanco
>> >> >> Telefónica Global Resources
>> >> >> Network Automation and Dynamization TECHNOLOGY PEOPLE GROUP
>> F
>> >> >> [phone] M [phone] [e-mail]
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On 06/06/13 11:51, "Mirko Sužnjević" <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> Hello,
>> >> >>> I think these names are ok. Maybe we should discuss the second
>> >> >>> one in more detail.
>> >> >>> Perhaps include negotiation in the name of the draft so its
>> >> >>> purpose is evident from the title? As the purpose of that draft
>> >> >>> is to establish which particular parameters will be used.
>> >> >>> My suggestions are:
>> >> >>> TCMTF - negotiation signalling
>> >> >>> TCMTF - negotiation process
>> >> >>> TCMTF - parameter signalling
>> >> >>> Or something along those lines?
>> >> >>> Mirko
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> -----Original Message-----
>> >> >>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
>> >> >>> Behalf Of Jose Saldana
>> >> >>> Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2013 12:56 PM
>> >> >>> To: [e-mail]
>> >> >>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 'ken
>> >> >>> carlberg'; Martin Stiemerling
>> >> >>> Subject: [tcmtf] TCMTF: Documents to be generated. Small
>> >> >>> modification
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> In the conf-call of yesterday it was also clear that for the IETF
>> >> >>> it is better to split Document A into two documents:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> - The "TCMTF reference model" (1): the protocol stack and
>scenarios.
>> >> >>> It should be said that each protocol at each layer will use its
>> >> >>> own signaling mechanisms.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> - The "TCMTF-specific signaling": there are some things we will
>> >> >>> need to
>> >> >>> deploy:
>> >> >>>      - a negotiation mechanism (2) to decide the options to use
>> >> >>> at each layer (e.g. a mux and demux agree on using
>> ROHC+PPPMux+GRE)
>> >> >>>      - a mechanism to setup/release a TCMTF tunnel (3)between a
>> >> >>> multiplexer and a de-multiplexer
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> The current draft is the TCMTF "reference model", since it does
>> >> >>> not talk about specific signaling issues.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> By now, we don't have to propose the "TCMTF specific signaling".
>> >> >>> It would be something to be deployed if the Working Group is
>> created.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> This same idea was proposed by Ken Carlberg in February. The
>> >> >>> advantages of this new distribution of the documents are (quoting
>> >Ken):
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>> One thing to keep in mind is that it is possible that (2) and
>> >> >>>> (3)
>> >> >>>> (below) can change over time and yet (1) (the reference model)
>> >> >>>> does not, then it may be best to separate (1) from the other
>items.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>> a more encompassing architecture or framework that would include
>> >> >>>> sample scenarios upon which your deliverables A & B are aimed
>>at?
>> >> >>>> My impression is that you may want to point the reader of
>> >> >>>> documents A & B to the same reference model, and instead of
>> >> >>>> repeating the same text, it may be helpful to separate this into
>> >> >>>> a separate
>> >document.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Once discussed, I would create a new charter proposal including
>> >> >>> these changes.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Do you like these short names for the documents?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> - "TCMTF reference model".
>> >> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-saldana-tsvwg-tcmtf/
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> - "TCMTF-specific signaling". Future work
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> - "TCMTF recommendations".
>> >> >>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-suznjevic-tsvwg-mtd-tcmtf/
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Your feedback will be welcome. Thanks!
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Jose
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>> -----Mensaje original-----
>> >> >>>> De: ken carlberg [mailto:[e-mail]] Enviado el:
>> >> >>>> martes,
>> >> >>>> 05 de marzo de 2013 17:07
>> >> >>>> Para: [e-mail]
>> >> >>>> CC: 'ken carlberg'; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>> >> >>>> Asunto: Re: [tcmtf] About the possibility of having a BOF about
>> >> >>>> TCMTF in
>> >> >>>> IETF87
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Hola Jose,
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Thanks for the expanded explanation, and again, apologies for
>> >> >>>> the tardy repsonse.  Its helpful to understand that document A
>> >> >>>> and B are sequential
>> >> >>> to
>> >> >>>> each other.  One thing to keep in mind is that if its possible
>> >> >>>> that
>> >> >>>> 2 and
>> >> >>> 3
>> >> >>>> (below) can change over time and yet 1 (the reference model)
>> >> >>>> does not, then it may be best to separate 1 from the other
>>items.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> as for what you outline as a discussion point for future work,
>> >> >>>> it seems
>> >> >>> fine.  I
>> >> >>>> just have a personal bias that if you have a clear idea of the
>> >> >>>> things
>> >> >>> you'd like
>> >> >>>> to accomplish in the future, then having a requirements document
>> >> >>>> would be helpful to focus those thoughts without having to have
>> >> >>>> one particular solution.  But that's a discussion point that
>> >> >>>> could be brought up during
>> >> >>> the
>> >> >>>> BoF, or sometime afterwards.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> cheers,
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> -ken
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>> A main document (A) in which we explain the method, the
>> >> >>>>> scenarios and the minimum signaling issues in order to make it
>> >> >>>>> work. The idea is that document
>> >> >>>>> (A) would be self-contained. Since we are not defining new
>> >> >>>>> protocols
>> >> >>> (i.e.
>> >> >>>>> already existing compressing, multiplexing and tunneling
>> >> >>>>> protocols are to be used), we understand that this can be done
>> >> >>>>> in a single
>> >> >>>> document.
>> >> >>>>> It would
>> >> >>>>> include:
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> 1- Protocol stack (it would be the "reference model")
>> >> >>>>> 2- a negotiation mechanism to decide the options to use at each
>> >> >>>>> layer
>> >> >>>>> 3- a mechanism to setup/release a tunnel between a multiplexer
>> >> >>>>> and a de-multiplexer
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Of course, another approach could be separating 1 from 2&3.
>> >> >>>>> However, we think this is not necessary since the method is not
>> >> >>>>> too
>> >> >>>> complicated.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Document (B) would only contain recommendations of how to
>> >> >>>>> better use the method proposed in document (A), i.e.,
>> >> >>>>> classification and maximum
>> >> >>>> delays.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> So clearly document (B) would totally depend on the reference
>> >> >>>>> model of document (A).
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> The idea of point 9 is to talk about some other interesting
>> >> >>>>> ideas which are considered as "future work":
>> >> >>>>> - a mechanism for a multiplexer to discover a de-multiplexer
>> >> >>>>> - mechanism to select an optimal multiplexer and a
>> >> >>>>> de-multiplexer when there are more than one muxer/de-muxer
>> for
>> >> >>>>> a flow
>> >> >>>>> - dynamically applying TCMTF
>> >> >>>>> - etc.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> What do you think?
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Thanks again for your feedback. Thinking and explaining things
>> >> >>>>> is always a good exercise!
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Jose
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> -----Mensaje original-----
>> >> >>>>>> De: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] En
>> >> >>>>>> nombre de ken carlberg Enviado el: miércoles, 27 de febrero de
>> >> >>>>>> 2013
>> >> >>>>>> 16:23
>> >> >>>>>> Para: [e-mail]
>> >> >>>>>> CC: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>> >> >>>>>> Asunto: Re: [tcmtf] About the possibility of having a BOF
>> >> >>>>>> about TCMTF in
>> >> >>>>>> IETF87
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> Hola Jose,
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> sorry for the tardy reply.  The altered text below is helpful,
>> >> >>>> thanks.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> With respect to your candidate deliverables, it appears that
>> >> >>>>>> you have
>> >> >>>>> listed
>> >> >>>>>> two for the proposed group: (A) a document that describes
>> >> >>>>>> options and negotiation mechanisms, and (B) a document
>> >> >>>>>> describing
>> >> >>>> recommendations
>> >> >>>>>> of which packet types should be multiplexed and a list fo
>> >> >>>>>> traffic
>> >> >>>>> classification
>> >> >>>>>> methods.  Have you considered a third document that presents a
>> >> >>>>>> more encompassing architecture or framework that would
>> include
>> >> >>>>>> sample scenarios upon which your deliverables A & B are aimed
>> at?
>> >> >>>>>> My impression
>> >> >>>>> is
>> >> >>>>>> that you may want to point the reader of documents A & B to
>> >> >>>>>> the same reference model, and instead of repeating the same
>> >> >>>>>> text, it may be helpful to separate this into a separate
>document.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> Also, would section 9 of your proposed charter lead one to
>> >> >>>>>> consider a requirements document?  Many times, new groups
>> >> >>>>>> start with a requirements document, but since you have a good
>> >> >>>>>> focus of what you want to accomplish, perhaps your last
>> >> >>>>>> deliverable could be a requirements document that would guide
>> any future work.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> -ken
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> ps, I don't want to advocate more work, but rather just have
>> >> >>>>>> you consider other possibilities (and feel free to shoot them
>> >> >>>>>> down
>> >> >>>>>> :-)
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> On Feb 22, 2013, at 5:39 AM, Jose Saldana <[e-mail]>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>> Hi Ken,
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>> Sorry for the delay. I think you are talking about Paragraph
>>5:
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>> 5. So the first objective of this group is to specify the
>> >> >>>>>>> protocol stack for tunneling, compressing and multiplexing
>> >> >>>>>>> traffic flows (TCMTF). Since standard protocols are being
>> >> >>>>>>> used at each layer, the signaling methods of those protocols
>> >> >>>>>>> will be
>> >used.
>> >> >>>>>>> Interactions with the Working Groups and Areas in which these
>> >> >>>>>>> protocols are developed can be expected. However, the
>> >> >> development
>> >> >>>>>>> of new compressing, multiplexing or tunneling protocols is
>> >> >>>>>>> not an objective of this Working Group. In addition, since
>> >> >>>>>>> the current RFC 4170 would be
>> >> >>>>>> considered as one of the options, this RFC could be obsoleted.
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>> Perhaps this is a bit confusing. When we say "at each layer",
>> >> >>>>>>> we are talking about "tunneling, compressing and
>>multiplexing"
>> >layers.
>> >> >>>>>>> Perhaps this can be a bit confusing. What about this?:
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>> 5. So the first objective of this group is to specify the
>> >> >>>>>>> protocol stack for tunneling, compressing and multiplexing
>> >> >>>>>>> traffic flows (TCMTF). Since standard protocols are being
>> >> >>>>>>> used for tunneling, compressing and multiplexing layers, the
>> >> >>>>>>> signaling methods of those
>> >> >>>>>> protocols will be used.
>> >> >>>>>>> Interactions with the Working Groups and Areas in which these
>> >> >>>>>>> protocols are developed can be expected. However, the
>> >> >> development
>> >> >>>> of
>> >> >>>>>>> new compressing, multiplexing or tunneling protocols is not
>> >> >>>>>>> an objective of this Working Group. In addition, since the
>> >> >>>>>>> current RFC
>> >> >>>>>>> 4170 would be considered as one of the options, this RFC
>> >> >>>>>>> could be
>> >> >>>>>> obsoleted.
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>> Is this what you were asking?
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>> Thanks for your feedback.
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>> Jose
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> -----Mensaje original-----
>> >> >>>>>>>> De: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> >> >>>>>>>> En nombre de ken carlberg Enviado el: martes, 19 de febrero
>> >> >>>>>>>> de
>> >> >>>>>>>> 2013
>> >> >>>>>>>> 14:17
>> >> >>>>>>>> Para: [e-mail]
>> >> >>>>>>>> CC: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>> >> >>>>>>>> Asunto: Re: [tcmtf] About the possibility of having a BOF
>> >> >>>>>>>> about TCMTF in
>> >> >>>>>>>> IETF87
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> Hola Jose,
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> could you expand a bit more on your text in the proposed
>> >> >>>>>>>> charter regarding "signaling methods".  Are you speaking in
>> >> >>>>>>>> the more general context of information stored in headers of
>> >> >>>>>>>> various protocol up and down the stack
>> >> >>>>>>> (ie,
>> >> >>>>>>>> layers 3, 4, and 5/app)?  Or, are you  speaking of
>> >> >>>>>>>> concurrent resource signaling protocols like RSVP/RSVP-TE,
>> >> >>>>>>>> or path establishment protocols
>> >> >>>>>>> like
>> >> >>>>>>>> MPLS?  Or, some combination of both?
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> -ken
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >> >>>>>>>> tcmtf mailing list
>> >> >>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>> >> >>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcmtf
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >> >>>>>> tcmtf mailing list
>> >> >>>>>> [e-mail]
>> >> >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcmtf
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >> >>> tcmtf mailing list
>> >> >>> [e-mail]
>> >> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcmtf
>> >> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >> >>> tcmtf mailing list
>> >> >>> [e-mail]
>> >> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcmtf
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ________________________________
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede
>> >> >> consultar nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo
>> >> >> electrónico en el enlace situado más abajo.
>> >> >> This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only
>> >> >> send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at:
>> >> >> http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx
>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> >> tcmtf mailing list
>> >> >> [e-mail]
>> >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcmtf
>> >> >
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> > tcmtf mailing list
>> >> > [e-mail]
>> >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcmtf
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> "Esta vez no fallaremos, Doctor Infierno"
>> >>
>> >> Dr Diego R. Lopez
>> >> Telefonica I+D
>> >> http://people.tid.es/diego.lopez/
>> >>
>> >> e-mail: [e-mail]
>> >> Tel:    [phone]
>> >> Mobile: [phone]
>> >> -----------------------------------------
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ________________________________
>> >>
>> >> Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede
>> >> consultar nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico
>> >> en el enlace situado más abajo.
>> >> This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send
>> >> and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at:
>> >> http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> tcmtf mailing list
>> >> [e-mail]
>> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcmtf
>> >
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar
>> nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace
>> situado más abajo.
>> This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and
>> receive email on the basis of the terms set out at:
>> http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx
>> _______________________________________________
>> tcmtf mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcmtf
>


________________________________

Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace situado más abajo.
This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at:
http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx