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

["Jose Saldana" <[e-mail]>]

Thanks, Gorry.

It is clear that we should emphasize the interest of the industry on TCMTF.
And someone from the industry saying "we have plans for implementing this"
will be really convenient.

Currently, the main draft includes (as authors or contributing authors)
people from Univ. Zaragoza, Cisco, Ericsson and Telefonica. The Draft B
includes Univ. Zagreb and Univ. Zaragoza.

So we should definitely try to find an equilibrium between industry and
academia. The (preliminary) distribution of the presentations is:

1- Teaser presentation: describing the problem and the need for
standardization. Dan Wing (Cisco). I think that the idea of the industry
interest should be stressed here.

2- Charter: Documents to be generated within this potential WG. Jose Saldana
(University of Zaragoza)
 
3- Draft A: Explaining the current TCMTF proposal. Someone from Telefonica
would be perfect here (they are thinking about it)
 
4- Draft B: Explaining the content of the draft about delay requirements,
classification methods, etc. Mirko Suznevic (University of Zagreb)

(5- Possible presentation of a new draft about satellite scenario. Someone
from DLR.)


So we would have 3 industry people + 2 academia people presentations. Do you
think this distribution would be convenient?

Thanks!

Jose

> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Enviado el: miércoles, 15 de mayo de 2013 11:10
> Para: [e-mail]
> CC: "'Mirko Su¾njeviæ'"; [e-mail]
> Asunto: Re: [tcmtf] BoF proposal for Berlin. Possible scheme
> 
> My guess is that many people at the IETF would "like" to see people say
they
> plan to implement for a product, or that they plan to devote significant
effort
> to seeing the standard matches their need for a particular use case (e.g.
> operators or equipment vendors). This can be a strong indication that
there is
> a need for a standard.  This can be in a slide, or at the Mic or on the
list, slides,
> etc...
> 
> If it's just researchers wanting toi agree a spec that may also be OK, but
then
> it could be an IRTF activity that comes up with an experimental spec for
> people to evaluate.
> 
> Gorry
> 
> > Hi, Mirko.
> >
> >
> >
> > The idea of energy savings is also interesting. People are getting
> > more and more concerned with the energy consumption. Not only
> European
> > Commission, but also smartphone and tablet manufacturers: the duration
> > of the battery is critical there.
> >
> >
> >
> > For example, "Qualcomm has developed a solution called Network Socket
> > Request Manager (NSRM) for efficient application management. NSRM
> > reduces smart phone signaling traffic by bundling application requests
> > and intelligently delaying them. NSRM provides significant signaling
> > reduction and also improves stand-by time."
> >
> >
> > <http://www.qualcomm.com/media/documents/qualcomm-research-
> managing-ba
> > ckgrou
> > nd-data-traffic-mobile-devices>
> > http://www.qualcomm.com/media/documents/qualcomm-research-
> managing-bac
> > kgroun
> > d-data-traffic-mobile-devices
> >
> >
> >
> > Perhaps we could also include this idea in the presentations. The
> > benefits of packet grouping are 3 instead of 2:
> >
> >
> >
> > 1- Bandwidth saving
> >
> > 2- PPS reduction
> >
> > 3- Energy savings
> >
> >
> >
> > What do you think? Will people at the IETF like energy savings?
> >
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> >
> >
> > Jose
> >
> >
> >
> > De: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] En nombre
> > de Mirko Su¾njevic 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]
> > Cc: Martin Stiemerling; Dan Wing; Mirko Su¾njeviæ
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > tcmtf mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcmtf
> >