IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcmtf] About the possibility of having a BOF about TCMTF in IETF87

"Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com> Wed, 30 January 2013 17:46 UTC

Return-Path: <lars@netapp.com>
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 D4C0821F8867; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 09:46:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.066
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.066 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.533, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3wXvdInk1Fd7; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 09:46:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx1.netapp.com (mx1.netapp.com [216.240.18.38]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F135521F886C; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 09:46:17 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,569,1355126400"; d="scan'208";a="238526612"
Received: from smtp2.corp.netapp.com ([10.57.159.114]) by mx1-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 30 Jan 2013 09:45:54 -0800
Received: from vmwexceht03-prd.hq.netapp.com (exchsmtp.hq.netapp.com [10.106.76.241]) by smtp2.corp.netapp.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/NTAP-1.6) with ESMTP id r0UHjqG1003048; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 09:45:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SACEXCMBX01-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([169.254.2.54]) by vmwexceht03-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.106.76.241]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 09:45:52 -0800
From: "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com>
To: "<jsaldana@unizar.es>" <jsaldana@unizar.es>
Thread-Topic: About the possibility of having a BOF about TCMTF in IETF87
Thread-Index: Ac3/DjLNZdfLStP/QW+3XuE3RhqbAAARoDYA
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 17:45:52 +0000
Message-ID: <D4D47BCFFE5A004F95D707546AC0D7E91F6B1C78@SACEXCMBX01-PRD.hq.netapp.com>
References: <003001cdff0e$33658a50$9a309ef0$@unizar.es>
In-Reply-To: <003001cdff0e$33658a50$9a309ef0$@unizar.es>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.104.60.117]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <BE324780E30DD94CA80C2DF6E03B1438@tahoe.netapp.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 00:30:11 -0800
Cc: "tcmtf@ietf.org" <tcmtf@ietf.org>, "tsv-area@ietf.org" <tsv-area@ietf.org>, Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>, Martin Stiemerling <Martin.Stiemerling@neclab.eu>
Subject: Re: [tcmtf] About the possibility of having a BOF about TCMTF in IETF87
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: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 17:46:18 -0000

Hi,

On Jan 30, 2013, at 18:21, Jose Saldana <jsaldana@unizar.es> wrote:
> The main idea (see also the Charter proposal below) is to define a method
> for saving bandwidth in real-time services which use tiny packets.
...
> In addition, new header compression methods have
> been defined (ROHC). So widening the scope of RFC4170 in order to consider
> not only UDP/RTP but also other protocols is seen as convenient.

why an extension of 4170 and not new ROHC profiles?

Lars

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email