Re: [tcmtf] TCMTF-Feedback about a possible BoF in London

MANUEL NUÑEZ SANZ <> Thu, 26 December 2013 11:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 312801AE1D7; Thu, 26 Dec 2013 03:18:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.738
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.738 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OnP74dpeqsZ3; Thu, 26 Dec 2013 03:18:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17C541AD8DB; Thu, 26 Dec 2013 03:18:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbrightmailg01.hi.inet (sbrightmailg01.hi.inet []) by tid.hi.inet (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0MYE00MHXVF3BL@tid.hi.inet>; Thu, 26 Dec 2013 12:18:39 +0100 (MET)
Received: from dequeue_removeroute (tid.hi.inet []) by sbrightmailg01.hi.inet (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id 7C.0B.03314.F801CB25; Thu, 26 Dec 2013 12:18:39 +0100 (CET)
Received: from (mailhost.hi.inet []) by tid.hi.inet (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0MYE00MHRVF3BL@tid.hi.inet>; Thu, 26 Dec 2013 12:18:39 +0100 (MET)
Received: from EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet ([]) by EX10-HTCAS7-MAD.hi.inet ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Thu, 26 Dec 2013 12:18:39 +0100
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2013 11:18:39 +0000
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?MANUEL_NU=D1EZ_SANZ?= <>
In-reply-to: <00c401cefd65$6e8ef570$4bace050$>
X-Originating-IP: []
To: Jose Saldana <>, "" <>, "" <>
Message-id: <90ED8822CB577741B9A1668A47539312658DBC67@EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_B3fJx9MfN2+TYpUbaI8Zzw)"
Content-language: es-ES
Accept-Language: es-ES, en-US
Thread-topic: [tcmtf] TCMTF-Feedback about a possible BoF in London
Thread-index: Ac79ZUO9+o1eWvDOTZW4bKGOX0YCWwExlyaA
X-AuditID: 0a5f4068-b7fe58e000000cf2-3d-52bc108fd787
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFupkkeLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42Lhinfg0u0X2BNk8OysisWuzxsYLRa8Wczs wOSxZMlPpgDGKC6blNSczLLUIn27BK6M+wd/MBfMCq44e/w1awPjS48uRk4OCQETiR27trBB 2GISF+6tB7K5OIQEDjBKtD18ywrhPGGUWNv4E6xKSGAmo8S+00kgNouAqsSE7Y9Yuhg5ONgE zCX61vGAhIUFnCTW75jLAmJzClhI9O/6zw6xQEHiz7nHYHERgWKJvqM7WEFsZoFUifaFW9lB xvAKeEvMWiMKEuYVEJT4MfkeC0RJrsTF2xeYIGxxiTm/JoK1MgrISqw8f5oRYqSzxMmDb5gh bCOJq11XWSHWCkgs2XOeGcIWlXj5+B8rxCfmEidPrGOfwCg2C8m6WUjWzUKyDsLWk7gxdQob hK0tsWzha2YIW1dixr9DLMjiCxjZVzGKFScVZaZnlOQmZuakGxjqZWTqZeallmxihERfxg7G 5TtVDjEKcDAq8fA+0N8dJMSaWFZcmXuIUYKDWUmEd9I7oBBvSmJlVWpRfnxRaU5q8SFGJg5O qQbGnntavo9Ntnix9M+wSNeZ8O1x0iJB5jmJE0XUJYtUD012Xyi8t0JnaaTzPhu/kpLgA2w7 k8N4XnZsLvl+ict55ZLsXaFnnm57UzHBQdug4SCLvq+i8xOZf5tX8jBV3Q+fJy6nq+6t//hj 065TEaKPzqjvbq1JD/93WM3j18uDm5Kut0vPu9mpxFKckWioxVxUnAgA+zPtYZwCAAA=
References: <00c401cefd65$6e8ef570$4bace050$>
Cc: Martin Stiemerling <>, 'Spencer Dawkins' <>
Subject: Re: [tcmtf] TCMTF-Feedback about a possible BoF in London
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Tunneling Compressed Multiplexed Traffic Flows \(TCMTF\) discussion list" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2013 11:18:54 -0000

     With this new focus there should be no problems because the main barriers has been resolved (TCP mainly), so I am completely agreed to form a working group.  However I think it is important to know the opinion of people less convinced.

     Manuel Núñez

De: tcmtf [] En nombre de Jose Saldana
Enviado el: viernes, 20 de diciembre de 2013 10:26
CC: Martin Stiemerling; 'Spencer Dawkins'
Asunto: [tcmtf] TCMTF-Feedback about a possible BoF in London

Hi all,

After the feedback received in the BoF in Berlin, we have updated the TCM-TF charter and the two drafts. We have tried to solve all the problems raised during the session.

Our plan is to request a new BoF in London next March, so we would like to know your opinion about these two questions:

1.  Is the new, reduced scope of TCM-TF suitable to form a working group?

2. We would like to kindly ask people who think that a TCM-TF Working group should be formed, to come forward and send an e-mail to the<>  mailing list stating it.

This feedback will allow us to get a better idea of the convenience of a BoF.

The new charter is here:
This is the old one (presented in Berlin):

In these links you can see the differences between the new versions of the drafts and the old ones:

The main improvements are:

- TCP optimization has been removed
- The classification of the scenarios has been refined and improved. Some of them have been removed
- A section about energy consumption has been added to the main draft
- A reference to the potential problem of the MTU and packet loss has been added
- The problem of the added delays is studied in detail in the second draft

- The improvements of the charter are summarized here:

Best regards,



Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace situado más abajo.
This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: