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

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