Re: [TERNLI] Notes from tonight's ad hoc

[Wesley Eddy <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 07:52:02PM -0400, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> Were stuck into jabber log, at 
> http://www.ietf.org/meetings/ietf-logs/tsvwg/2006-07-11.html, at Lar's 
> suggestion.
> 

One thing that I took away from yesterday was that it may be productive
to build a pair of tables to describe the problem space; one table
for "significant path changes" that might be passed up to the transport,
and one table for "significant path desires" that the transport can
pass down.  In each table, we could have a row for each piece of data
and columns that describe the time-frame of relevence (per packet,
within an RTT, per-connection, etc), any existing "point" solutions, and
whether or not the solutions are deployed now, or still research.

There are a lot of starting points to feed this, including the IAB
link indications document and some of the mobopts work.

My thought is that once we have all the diverse things we're talking
about clearly listed, it might be easier to pick out commonalities or
visualize what an architected solution could look like, and also what
the current accidental architecture looks like.

Does this sound like a reasonable next step to take?

-- 
Wesley M. Eddy
Verizon Federal Network Systems