Re: [tcmtf] BoF preparation: Improvements in TCM-TF according to the received comments

<philip.eardley@bt.com> Wed, 12 February 2014 10:59 UTC

Return-Path: <philip.eardley@bt.com>
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 322231A0947; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 02:59:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 lJxWJx4cXPUL; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 02:59:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpe1.intersmtp.com (smtpe1.intersmtp.com [62.239.224.235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 091AC1A092F; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 02:59:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from EVMHT64-UKRD.domain1.systemhost.net (10.36.3.101) by RDW083A006ED62.bt.com (10.187.98.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.169.1; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 10:59:19 +0000
Received: from EMV67-UKRD.domain1.systemhost.net ([169.254.2.146]) by EVMHT64-UKRD.domain1.systemhost.net ([10.36.3.101]) with mapi; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 10:59:12 +0000
From: <philip.eardley@bt.com>
To: <jsaldana@unizar.es>, <tcmtf@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 10:59:11 +0000
Thread-Topic: BoF preparation: Improvements in TCM-TF according to the received comments
Thread-Index: Ac8iaoBRyix1kdDRTtm12MWuQs1b5AFdRlGA
Message-ID: <A2E337CDB7BC4145B018B9BEE8EB3E0D40AAA4584C@EMV67-UKRD.domain1.systemhost.net>
References: <007101cf226a$8d4ff8e0$a7efeaa0$@unizar.es>
In-Reply-To: <007101cf226a$8d4ff8e0$a7efeaa0$@unizar.es>
Accept-Language: en-US, en-GB
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US, en-GB
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_A2E337CDB7BC4145B018B9BEE8EB3E0D40AAA4584CEMV67UKRDdoma_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 03:02:16 -0800
Cc: tsv-area@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [tcmtf] BoF preparation: Improvements in TCM-TF according to the received comments
X-BeenThere: tcmtf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
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: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 10:59:23 -0000

<< Conjointly, transport protocols such as SCTP, DCCP, MPTCP, UDP-Lite and the LEDBAT congestion control mechanism offer a large number of services to applications in addition to the long-standing two services provided by TCP and UDP. For an application programmer, using protocols other than TCP or UDP is hard>>

One thing I think would be useful is to analyse this as a migration problem. I know lots of people have thought about why migration is hard. My take is that the crucial issues are to make sure there is incremental benefit (the party migrating gets a benefit now and not when everyone else has migrated) and to try and ensure migration can be one party at a time (so others don't have to care - 'party' is most obviously one end host, but in some circumstances can be eg 'Apple iOS'). There's some quite nice stuff in RFC5218.

Best wishes
Phil

From: tsv-area [mailto:tsv-area-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jose Saldana
Sent: 05 February 2014 12:05
To: tcmtf@ietf.org
Cc: tsv-area@ietf.org
Subject: BoF preparation: Improvements in TCM-TF according to the received comments

Hi all,

In order to prepare the BoF in London, I have tried to summarize the questions that have been discussed, in order to include the improvements in the charter and in the two drafts.

On behalf of clarity, I will send different messages with the solutions for each problem.

If you think there are other problems, please start a new thread.


Problems discussed in the BoF:

1) TCP multiplexing and effect on TCP dynamics. (I think this was the main problem).

2) Path MTU discovery issues

3) Are we adding latency and complexity to save relatively little bandwidth?


4) Do vendors want standards in this space?


Problems discussed in the list:


5) Why is ROHC not a solution?


Jose