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

[JUAN ANTONIO CASTELL LUCIA <[e-mail]>]

Hi all, I also concur with your proposal and with Mirko's suggestions. In addition, I also would emphasize TCMTF will help to mitigate the excessive overhead that IPv6 may suppose in the near future due to its greater header.

Regarding TEF participation in Draft A) presentation, we hope answer you something in few days...

Best Regards

De: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] En nombre de Mirko Sužnjevic
Enviado el: martes, 14 de mayo de 2013 10:08
Para: [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


________________________________

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