Hi, Tim. I think it is a good idea and we should definitely explain the scenarios in more detail.
When you talk about a "deliverable which describes scenarios and requirements," do you mean another draft? In the current "TCM-TF reference model" draft, section 1.4 is about "Scenarios of application". Would it be enough if we improve that section according to what we have discussed in the last days? http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-saldana-tsvwg-tcmtf-05#section-1.4 Regarding the potential effects on other protocols, do you think we should include that on the same draft? Thanks a lot, Jose > -----Mensaje original----- > De: Tim Chown [mailto:t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk] > Enviado el: sábado, 23 de noviembre de 2013 10:58 > Para: jsald...@unizar.es > CC: Eggert, Lars; tc...@ietf.org; tsv-area@ietf.org; Martin Stiemerling; > Reinaldo Penno (repenno); Spencer Dawkins > Asunto: Re: [tcmtf] Improved version (v8) of the TCM-TF charter draft > > Hi, > > On 22 Nov 2013, at 09:50, Jose Saldana <jsald...@unizar.es> wrote: > > > Hi, Lars. > > > > During the BoF in Berlin, I got the impression that the problem was > > not the idea of TCM-TF itself, but some of the considered options > > (e.g. TCP). There were many people who raised their hands when asked > > about "willing to review docs or comment on mailing list". However, it > > seems that there are some people who are not convinced about the utility > of TCM-TF. > > > > So in order to reach consensus, let us keep on discussing and > > thinking. This is very enriching, since it is making us refine the > > scenarios where TCM-TF may have a real potential, and discard the ones in > which it makes no sense. > > I think it may be useful if the charter includes a deliverable which describes > scenarios and requirements. At present, the scenarios and existing > solutions are presented in points 1-4 of the charter, rather than being more > formally documented as part of the WG activities. Such a document could > explain why, from a requirements perspective, ROHC isnt sufficient for the > use cases envisioned. It could also clarify whats in scope, e.g. point 2 > mentions satellite while point 10 mentions satellite as possible future > work. Theres been some good scenario discussion on the list recently > which could all be captured. > > Whats also missing is analysis of the impact on other protocols of deploying > soemthing like this; this concern was raised at the previous BoF. > > Tim
