Re: [tcmtf] Improvements in the TCM-TF charter draft v8

"Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com> Wed, 20 November 2013 14:04 UTC

Return-Path: <lars@netapp.com>
X-Original-To: tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcmtf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10F451ADFA1; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 06:04:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.427
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.427 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.525, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IhTtMUKXsSjL; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 06:04:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx2.netapp.com (mx2.netapp.com [216.240.18.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E6BE1ADF92; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 06:04:29 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.93,737,1378882800"; d="asc'?scan'208"; a="57652337"
Received: from vmwexceht03-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.106.76.241]) by mx2-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 20 Nov 2013 06:04:21 -0800
Received: from SACEXCMBX01-PRD.hq.netapp.com ([169.254.2.244]) by vmwexceht03-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.106.76.241]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 06:04:21 -0800
From: "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com>
To: "jsaldana@unizar.es" <jsaldana@unizar.es>
Thread-Topic: Improvements in the TCM-TF charter draft v8
Thread-Index: Ac7l29nMkufifoJCSfepXySzd9rO2QAYJwOA
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 14:04:20 +0000
Message-ID: <34D36AB0-C95B-4569-9FBC-6CD58483C78D@netapp.com>
References: <008b01cee5e1$93b2e460$bb18ad20$@unizar.es>
In-Reply-To: <008b01cee5e1$93b2e460$bb18ad20$@unizar.es>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.106.53.51]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_ABE7C3B8-E55D-46E1-A712-CF438E89A4B3"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "tcmtf@ietf.org" <tcmtf@ietf.org>, Martin Stiemerling <mls.ietf@googlemail.com>, "tsv-area@ietf.org" <tsv-area@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [tcmtf] Improvements in the TCM-TF charter draft v8
X-BeenThere: tcmtf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 20 Nov 2013 14:04:31 -0000

Hi,

why is ROHC not a solution?

Lars

On 2013-11-20, at 6:13, Jose Saldana <jsaldana@unizar.es> wrote:

> Hi all.
> 
> We have the idea of asking for a BoF in London in March 2014. For this aim,
> we should discuss a new version of the charter draft. I send it in the next
> e-mail.
> 
> This e-mail summarizes the improvements. I have put different numbers, in
> order to discuss them separately in the list.
> 
> 1- In order to be consistent with the drafts, the charter should talk about
> "TCM-ingress and egress optimizers" instead of "TCM multiplexers and
> demultiplexers".
> 
> 2- A new scenario has been included "a wireless Internet connection shared
> by a number of people in a place with low Internet penetration", taking into
> account that some people from Africa were interested on TCM for improving
> real-time applications in this kind of places.
> 
> 3- Scenario: "a community network, in which a number of people in the same
> geographical place share their connections in a cooperative way". It has
> some similarities with the previous one.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_network. 
> 
> 4- Scenario: "a satellite connection used for providing connectivity in a
> non-connected area during a short period of time (e.g. journalists covering
> the arrival of a mountain stage of a cycling competition)."
> 
> 5- Scenario: " -	an air-to-ground connection providing Internet
> connectivity to the passengers of an aircraft, multiplexing a number of
> simultaneous VoIP flows. The same can be applied between a cruise ship and a
> satellite." http://www.gogoair.com/gogo/cms/work.do
> 
> 6- According to the feedback received in the BoF in Berlin, the references
> to TCP have been removed.
> 
> 7- A reference to the potential problem of the MTU and packet loss has been
> added in number 8: "The eventual impact of multiplexing on protocol dynamics
> (e.g. the lost of a multiplexed packet, MTU-related issues) will also have
> to be addressed.."
> 
> 
> Any other suggestions, according to what we discussed in the BoF?
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/87/minutes/minutes-87-tcmtf
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Jose Saldana
>