Re: [tcpm] [tsvwg] Agenda requests for TSVWG@IETF101

[Gorry Fairhurst <[e-mail]>]

David: You need to prune youself from the tracker mail exploder lists - 
or get your co-chairs to ask the secretariat  this ;-) ... Otherwise 
you'll still feel compelled to read this.

Gorry

On 13/03/2018, 12:15, David Ros wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Erm, this former ICCRG chair is also getting all these messages, and 
> hadn’t noticed until now that he was being bcc’ed… is this a bug or a 
> feature? :)
>
> Cheers,
>
> David
>
>> On 13 Mar 2018, at 13:11, Michael Welzl <[e-mail] 
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi folks!
>>
>> I am puzzled as to why I receive this - has someone put me in bcc? 
>>  AFAIK, I’m not in tcpm-chairs, not in tsvwg-chairs, and I’m also 
>> happy to remind people that I’m *not* chairing ICCRG anymore!  :-)
>>
>> Anyway, to me, this also sounds like ICCRG material - but I haven’t 
>> read the draft and so I probably shouldn’t even comment.
>> But FWIW, I’d enjoy seeing this in ICCRG. I might even ask something 
>> at the mic, just to see how that feels.
>>
>> I’m cc’ing the ICCRG chair, Jana, because it seems that this should 
>> have reached him.
>>
>> Jana - I actually even can’t fully figure out what these folks here 
>> are talking about: either this draft:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-han-tsvwg-cc
>> or that draft:
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lochin-ietf-tsvwg-gtfrc-02
>>
>> I think it’s the upper one.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Michael
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 13, 2018, at 12:51 PM, Gorry Fairhurst <[e-mail] 
>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 13/03/2018, 11:23, Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE/Stuttgart) wrote:
>>>>> As for TSVWG, we have had quite a long discussion with the authors 
>>>>> at the
>>>>> meeting and after. The TSV chairs encouraged them to take the CC 
>>>>> aspects
>>>>> separately and explain why this method is better and detail what 
>>>>> this benefit
>>>>> is and what is required in the router to allow this. We suggested 
>>>>> an initial talk
>>>>> in ICCRG to present results and show *why* this is attractive. As 
>>>>> far as I know
>>>>> they requested time to do this.
>>>> ICCRG is the right home for this. And the TCPM charter explicitly 
>>>> allows us to move topics there...
>>>>
>>>> I have written a PhD thesis on exactly this topic; we had a network 
>>>> processor implementation of Quick-Start, and our use cases was 
>>>> actually augmented/virtual reality... And I run into tons of 
>>>> fundamental issues 10 years ago, which are not easy to solve and 
>>>> not even mentioned in the I-Ds. So I somehow feel qualified to give 
>>>> feedback on what they have to look at more in detail 😉
>>>>
>>>>> They also requested time in TSVWG - but there's (as yet) been 
>>>>> little discssion
>>>>> on the list, so we curently advise them to prepare a slide to show 
>>>>> to say why
>>>>> people should read the draft. We have not decided (yet) to give 
>>>>> time to this
>>>>> new framework.
>>>> I personally believe that for new ideas the IETF should give a 
>>>> presentation slot *once*. For a second presentation the bar should 
>>>> be higher. If the framework draft has been presented already in 
>>>> TSVWG, IMHO further discussion on that belongs now on the list.
>>>>
>>>>> They have now also requested time in TCPM.
>>>> The draft is very specific about TCP congestion control, so in 
>>>> principle it belongs into TCPM. In general, I think TCPM should be 
>>>> open to new ideas. But my own thinking is that this can be at best 
>>>> a "if time permits" presentation in TCPM.
>>>>
>>>>> I don't know whethere this time they are also requesting slots 
>>>>> some other
>>>>> places to discuss other aspects.
>>>>>
>>>>> I also suggested (informally) that they should try making a great 
>>>>> short
>>>>> presentation of how this is a new opportunity and whar has changed 
>>>>> since
>>>>> we last saw schemes proposed. I do see that there are significant 
>>>>> advances in
>>>>> router forwarding hardware - and I suspect there could be similar 
>>>>> ideas in
>>>>> cisco, etc.Would other vendors (or operators) be interested in 
>>>>> standardising
>>>>> this? I think such a talk could be put to TSVAREA.
>>>> I am only at the IETF on Sunday evening and Monday morning. 
>>>> Unfortunately, I may not be in TSVAREA as I have to go back to the 
>>>> airport.
>>>>
>>>> I doubt that other people who are familiar with RTG and OPS area 
>>>> will show up in TSVAREA (but I may be wrong). It is pointless to 
>>>> discuss traffic engineering and OAM in router hardware without RTG 
>>>> area input. In RTG and OPS area, the level of multi-vendor support 
>>>> of a document can typically be seen in the author list.
>>>>
>>>> Michael
>>>>
>>> I suspect it is far too late to use TSVAREA for this at the coming IETF.
>>>
>>> Actually, to be more clear --- I am **NOT** against some sort of 
>>> evolution in the network, and figuring out how best transports 
>>> interact with this.
>>>
>>> I still have people working on this, I see newer router designs as 
>>> more inviting, I still see appetite to do this. But like you, I 
>>> **KNOW** there some big obtsacles and pitfalls. I am wondering how 
>>> best to bring this sort of work to the IETF and get good perspective 
>>> on the problems and solutions. After PLUS was short down by Privacy, 
>>> I'd hate the next new thing to be shot down for the wrong reason.
>>>
>>> Gorry
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> tcpm mailing list
>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> tcpm mailing list
>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
>