[tcmtf] A terminological question: "small-packet flows"
"Jose Saldana" <jsaldana@unizar.es> Wed, 12 June 2013 13:10 UTC
Return-Path: <jsaldana@unizar.es>
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 8E7C721F9C51 for <tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Wed, 12 Jun 2013 06:10:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.519
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.519 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.780,
BAYES_20=-0.74, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 d9nBAe2YtjGx for
<tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Jun 2013 06:10:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huecha.unizar.es (huecha.unizar.es [155.210.1.51]) by
ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F00921F9994 for <tcmtf@ietf.org>;
Wed, 12 Jun 2013 06:10:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usuarioPC (gtc1pc12.cps.unizar.es [155.210.158.17]) by
huecha.unizar.es (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id r5CDAS4m006268;
Wed, 12 Jun 2013 15:10:28 +0200
From: "Jose Saldana" <jsaldana@unizar.es>
To: <tcmtf@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 15:10:37 +0200
Organization: Universidad de Zaragoza
Message-ID: <008101ce676e$3b4675e0$b1d361a0$@unizar.es>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0082_01CE677E.FECFBB10"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Content-language: es
Thread-index: Ac5nbdr6vwKz99hGQMmbbC1me/s+Qw==
X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd & Bogofilter
Cc: =?iso-8859-2?Q?Mirko_Su=BEnjevi=E6?= <Mirko.Suznjevic@fer.hr>
Subject: [tcmtf] =?iso-8859-2?q?A_terminological_question=3A_=22small-pack?=
=?iso-8859-2?q?et_flows=22?=
X-BeenThere: tcmtf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: jsaldana@unizar.es
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 Jun 2013 13:10:39 -0000
Hi all. Mirko and I are working on an improved version of the "TCMTF - recommendations" document. Since TCMTF is not only suitable for real-time services, but also for non real-time ones (M2M, flows of ACKs, instant messaging), one possibility is using the term "small-packet flows". The advantages are clear: - It is more generic. - It includes the characteristics of TCMTF-able packets: - low payload-to-header ratio - long-term flows This term is also being used in some technical documents: www.huawei.com/ilink/en/download/HW_193034. What do you think? Any other proposals? Jose
- [tcmtf] A terminological question: "small-packet … Jose Saldana
- Re: [tcmtf] A terminological question: "small-pac… Dan Wing
- Re: [tcmtf] A terminological question: "small-pac… gorry
- Re: [tcmtf] A terminological question: "small-pac… Jose Saldana
- Re: [tcmtf] A terminological question: "small-pac… Jose Saldana
- Re: [tcmtf] A terminological question: "small-pac… gorry
- Re: [tcmtf] A terminological question: "small-pac… Jose Saldana