IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Mirko Sužnjević <Mirko.Suznjevic@fer.hr> Tue, 14 May 2013 08:07 UTC

Return-Path: <Mirko.Suznjevic@fer.hr>
X-Original-To: tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7A6F21F9017 for <tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 May 2013 01:07:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.298
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YCDyRTBnEwLr for <tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 May 2013 01:07:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.fer.hr (mail.fer.hr [161.53.72.233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EB6121F8FF2 for <tcmtf@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 May 2013 01:07:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MAIL4.fer.hr ([2002:a135:48ea::a135:48ea]) by MAIL.fer.hr ([2002:a135:48e9::a135:48e9]) with mapi id 14.02.0309.002; Tue, 14 May 2013 10:07:46 +0200
From: =?iso-8859-2?Q?Mirko_Su=BEnjevi=E6?= <Mirko.Suznjevic@fer.hr>
To: "tcmtf@ietf.org" <tcmtf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: BoF proposal for Berlin. Possible scheme
Thread-Index: Ac5PxBJaATCGYdMoQjike+GnlM5T4AAsAxfQ
Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 08:07:46 +0000
Message-ID: <E004A7C54DE04F4BB87DB9F32308DA5C01CFFE@MAIL4.fer.hr>
References: <008201ce4fc4$22b8e510$682aaf30$@unizar.es>
In-Reply-To: <008201ce4fc4$22b8e510$682aaf30$@unizar.es>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [77.69.7.197]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E004A7C54DE04F4BB87DB9F32308DA5C01CFFEMAIL4ferhr_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [tcmtf] BoF proposal for Berlin. Possible scheme
X-BeenThere: tcmtf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Tue, 14 May 2013 08:07:54 -0000

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:jsaldana@unizar.es]
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 12:25 PM
To: tcmtf@ietf.org
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

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email