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

"Jose Saldana" <jsaldana@unizar.es> Wed, 20 November 2013 11:13 UTC

Return-Path: <jsaldana@unizar.es>
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 448681ADBD4; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 03:13:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.827
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.827 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.525, 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 L4G-CfDibvNi; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 03:13:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ortiz.unizar.es (ortiz.unizar.es [155.210.1.52]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D18B91ADDBF; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 03:13:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from usuarioPC (gtc1pc12.cps.unizar.es [155.210.158.17]) by ortiz.unizar.es (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id rAKBDe24023064; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 12:13:40 +0100
From: "Jose Saldana" <jsaldana@unizar.es>
To: <tcmtf@ietf.org>, <tsv-area@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 12:13:44 +0100
Organization: Universidad de Zaragoza
Message-ID: <008b01cee5e1$93b2e460$bb18ad20$@unizar.es>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: Ac7l29nMkufifoJCSfepXySzd9rO2Q==
Content-Language: es
X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd & Bogofilter
Cc: Martin Stiemerling <mls.ietf@googlemail.com>, 'Spencer Dawkins' <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Subject: [tcmtf] Improvements in the TCM-TF charter draft v8
X-BeenThere: tcmtf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: jsaldana@unizar.es
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 11:13:57 -0000

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