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

["Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE/Stuttgart)" <[e-mail]>]

> 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