Re: [tcmtf] Support to create the working group for TCM-TF

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

> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] En nombre de
> Joe Touch
> Enviado el: lunes, 05 de agosto de 2013 20:19
> Para: Jose Saldana
> CC: 'Wesley Eddy'; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> Asunto: Re: [tcmtf] Support to create the working group for TCM-TF
> 
> 
> 
> On 8/3/2013 1:43 AM, Jose Saldana wrote:
> > I agree with Wes. The question of the area was discussed one year ago
> > (see slides 24-26 of this presentation at IETF83:
> > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/slides/slides-83-tsvwg-0.pdf).
> > There have been no objections about this point during the last 16
> > months. The drafts are in tsvwg. The BOF was organized by the
> > Transport Area, and nobody objected.
> 
> One area "on the table" during the time of a BOF is whether the area is
> appropriate. It shouldn't be considered a "done deal" until it's a WG.
> 
> Further, there's clearly a lot of continuing confusion about what this
work
> constitutes.
> 
> I'm a bit surprised that nobody else spoke up a year ago in Paris; the
logic in
> slide 26 is deeply flawed. By that logic, all tunnels are E2E and thus all
tunnels
> belong in transport. Regardless, the list is where these discussions
should
> happen, and I didn't see any such discussion raised here.
> 
> Finally, you really ought to look at SEAL.
> 
> Joe
>

All,

First of all, thanks for your feedback.

The idea of TCM-TF is to include different options at each layer (header
compression, multiplexing and tunneling). The tunneling layer currently
considers L2TP, GRE and MPLS. In a first approach, I don't see any problem
on considering other tunneling technologies, as SEAL, if we find them
useful.

Regarding the problem of the Area, this is my summary:

- Since TCM includes protocols from different layers, it is really difficult
to assign it to an area. It involves a number of areas, but in fact it must
belong to one of them. The possibilities were RAI, Internet and Transport.
- We first tried with AVTCore (RAI area) and the answer was "I don't think
this proposal really belongs in the WG, most likely not this area even"
(Magnus W).
- So we had two options: Internet and Transport. We thought Transport could
fit, and we tried there and we were accepted.
- We have been for one year and a half in the Transport Area Working Group,
tsvwg (the first version of the draft was submitted Feb 16 2012,
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-saldana-tsvwg-tcmtf/history/).
- So the people who have participated in the discussion are mainly in the
Transport Area.
- One year ago (July 8 2012), a specific tcmtf mailing list was created.
This had an advantage: we could specifically discuss about tcmtf. But it
also had a drawback: only people subscribed to the list have participated in
the discussion. As a consequence, in the BoF, people not subscribed to the
list raised many concerns that had not appeared at all in the discussion
before.

And this is my opinion:

- If we try to change to Internet Area now, we would have to start from
scratch after 1.5 years: explaining everything again to people in that area,
looking for a WG in the Internet Area, talking with the ADs, etc.
- So let's be practical and assume that Transport Area can be a good place
for this. We have even organized a BoF in the Transport Area, and no one had
any concern with that. It has been a long way, so we should not rethink
everything again.
- Of course, let's try to get people from other areas involved. We need
them.

Thanks a lot,

Jose