Re: [tcmtf] TCMTF-Feedback about a possible BoF in London

Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net> Mon, 06 January 2014 10:41 UTC

Return-Path: <ggx@gigix.net>
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 8A3D81ADFB1 for <tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 02:41:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=unavailable
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 YygV4i7n9lYX for <tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 02:41:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-f48.google.com (mail-wg0-f48.google.com [74.125.82.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07A571ADF63 for <tcmtf@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 02:41:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f48.google.com with SMTP id z12so15356125wgg.3 for <tcmtf@ietf.org>; Mon, 06 Jan 2014 02:41:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references:to; bh=HO7gDKepFh5nA6RxluoO0U+q9p1OP7DzlrYI3y6XKgY=; b=Ula26BI3sijuR4jKS6VOWdG6KAL1MlDa2F2Nvz/ODmupUH4DpT4uyTMQ0z6F/I4h50 YnoZ8ohoiIXVNSqTZWIOcn8WyKLUW7daZU3TY8/zAHYiak1JJ7RJ+Os++QWhbAAnPn/C cN540pQyxv7vpptiJWk3Z4UFYJbPlyCreC68kwGROvPsgOiR/v8HjW9p39F6tPReIGEd HSqTKDsRiqZlVf/IcSoh/+059Kxv2hZOwvpbWnj1LCl5WG44oLL/Tvcc7yfNG7gF3jd9 bsTv/16SoLf0o2x2+IfZ2H8fCy9VPg8FiFTLNJ3caltoeSGEcF5dbNgo3y4ig2az6e3J OiPg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnUU++QgwX+q+9dmeInQRK48eApdGWNLKnjqiIC0yss4/bjBQyamcaizZZoBdo7JhL6UO9j
X-Received: by 10.180.77.72 with SMTP id q8mr11997421wiw.12.1389004896052; Mon, 06 Jan 2014 02:41:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dhcp164-05.enst.fr (dhcp164-05.enst.fr. [137.194.165.5]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id z2sm17207115wiy.11.2014.01.06.02.41.34 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 06 Jan 2014 02:41:34 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_AB370AEC-61EC-4AB9-ACA3-AF09FF7D0D6B"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\))
From: Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>
In-Reply-To: <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE712026EF2FF8F@MX15A.corp.emc.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 11:41:32 +0100
Message-Id: <77C9FEE1-9EB2-4BE6-8D57-FF04F472EA57@gigix.net>
References: <00c401cefd65$6e8ef570$4bace050$@unizar.es> <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE712026EF2FF8F@MX15A.corp.emc.com>
To: "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827)
Cc: "tcmtf@ietf.org" <tcmtf@ietf.org>, Martin Stiemerling <mls.ietf@googlemail.com>, "tsv-area@ietf.org" <tsv-area@ietf.org>, Jose Saldana <jsaldana@unizar.es>
Subject: Re: [tcmtf] TCMTF-Feedback about a possible BoF in London
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: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 10:41:47 -0000

Hi All,

I agree with David that the charter is a bit prolix.

IMHO it can be shortened in the following way:

- Merge abd reduce paragraphs 2 and 3. I think that the main message that the new paragraph should deliver is “RFC4170 does not cover new emerging scenarios”, which will be completed by the current paragraph 4.

- Shorten paragraph 5. The charter should (IMHO) offer a list of sample scenarios where bandwidth saving is desirable but the analysis of such scenarios has to be done elsewhere. In the current form there is too much details. 

- Paragraph 6: I am not sure if we really need to keep such precise figures in a charter. If people prefer to keep the text it should appear earlier on in the charter (in the new second paragraph ???) to provide motivation on using TCM solutions. 

Having said that, I support the formation of the WG.

ciao

Luigi


On 4 Jan. 2014, at 04:04 , Black, David <david.black@emc.com>; wrote:

> A second BoF has the explicit goal of forming a WG, as a third BoF
> is not permitted.  In that regard, the new charter seems long and
> somewhat lacking in focus.  Two key things I look for in a proposed
> charter are what problem (or problems) the proposed WG is looking to
> solve and an initial approach to the problem or problems.
>  
> In the new draft charter, the problem statement appears to be in
> paragraph 4 with paragraph 1 providing important background.  The
> focus of the work appears to be on extending TCRTP (RFC 4170) to
> UDP and to include new compression protocols.  In contrast, I have
> a hard time discerning the initial approach from the new draft charter.
>  
> In light of this, there are a few things that I wish the new
> draft charter had definitive proposals for:
>  
>       a) Whether to replace RFC 4170 vs. write a new RFC (could be
>             UDP-only or UDP + RTP/UDP) as a complement to RFC 4170.
>       b) Whether to use ECRTP, ROHCv2 (RFC 5225) and/or IPHC (RFC 2507 ?).
>             Non-use of ECRTP would be a major change to 4170, and I
> wonder about IPHC, as opposed to the ROHCv2 profiles.
>       c) Analogies to b) for the Mux and Tunnel layers of the stack.
>  
> Overall, it looks like the first task of the WG is to select the protocol
> stack to standardize - I have misgivings about that, and would prefer to
> see a concrete proposal in a crisp charter that ran along the following
> lines, naming the protocols to be used:
>  
> 1) RFC 4170 does X, and needs the following changes/additions: X, Y, Z.
> 2) The WG will replace RFC 4170 with a new RFC that contains: A, B, C.
>  
> A specific proposal or proposals for the protocol stack or stacks
> would also narrow the scope of item 9 in the charter on the negotiation
> mechanism.  I also don’t see a goal/milestone listed for an extension to
> or replacement for RFC 4170.
>  
> I’d prefer to see a much shorter more focused draft charter.  There’s a
> bunch of background material that does not seem crucial to the charter,
> starting w/paragraphs 2 and 3.
>  
> Thanks,
> --David
>  
> From: tsv-area [mailto:tsv-area-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jose Saldana
> Sent: Friday, December 20, 2013 4:26 AM
> To: tcmtf@ietf.org; tsv-area@ietf.org
> Cc: Martin Stiemerling
> Subject: TCMTF-Feedback about a possible BoF in London
>  
> Hi all,
>  
> After the feedback received in the BoF in Berlin, we have updated the TCM-TF charter and the two drafts. We have tried to solve all the problems raised during the session.
>  
> Our plan is to request a new BoF in London next March, so we would like to know your opinion about these two questions:
>  
>  
> 1.  Is the new, reduced scope of TCM-TF suitable to form a working group?
>  
>  
> 2. We would like to kindly ask people who think that a TCM-TF Working group should be formed, to come forward and send an e-mail to the tsv-area@ietf.org  mailing list stating it.
>  
>  
> This feedback will allow us to get a better idea of the convenience of a BoF.
>  
> The new charter is here: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcmtf/current/msg00465.html
> This is the old one (presented in Berlin): http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcmtf/current/msg00368.html
>  
> In these links you can see the differences between the new versions of the drafts and the old ones:
> http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-saldana-tsvwg-tcmtf-06.txt&url2=draft-saldana-tsvwg-tcmtf-05.txt
> http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-suznjevic-tsvwg-mtd-tcmtf-02.txt&url2=draft-suznjevic-tsvwg-mtd-tcmtf-01.txt
>  
>  
> The main improvements are:
>  
> - TCP optimization has been removed
> - The classification of the scenarios has been refined and improved. Some of them have been removed
> - A section about energy consumption has been added to the main draft
> - A reference to the potential problem of the MTU and packet loss has been added
> - The problem of the added delays is studied in detail in the second draft
>  
> - The improvements of the charter are summarized here: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcmtf/current/msg00466.html
>  
>  
> Best regards,
>  
> Jose
>  
> _______________________________________________
> tcmtf mailing list
> tcmtf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcmtf