Hi all.
First of all, thanks to David and Luigi for their valuable comments. I will wait for a while in order to include Davids comments (perhaps some other people has more suggestions). These are the improvements of version 10 with respect to v9 ( <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcmtf/current/msg00486.html> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcmtf/current/msg00486.html) - I have shortened paragraph 1. - I have shortened and merged paragraphs 2 and 3. - I have moved paragraph 4 to the third place, in order to set clearer what we want: replacing RFC4170 with a widened proposal. As David suggested, I have also shortened the text and it is now more straightforward. - I have clearly stated which protocols will be used on each layer. The negotiation mechanism is still necessary, since different options are considered e.g. for header compression. The one to be used will depend on the scenario and the processing capacity of the two optimizers. - I have significantly shortened the description of the scenarios. - I have removed paragraph 6, which included the savings figures. - I have included the replacement of RFC4170 in the first milestone. Thanks! Jose De: Black, David [ <mailto:david.bl...@emc.com> mailto:david.bl...@emc.com] Enviado el: sábado, 04 de enero de 2014 4:05 Para: Jose Saldana; <mailto:tc...@ietf.org> tc...@ietf.org; <mailto:tsv-area@ietf.org> tsv-area@ietf.org CC: Martin Stiemerling; Black, David Asunto: RE: TCMTF-Feedback about a possible BoF in London A second BoF has the explicit goal of forming a WG, as a third BoF is not permitted. In that regard, the new charter seems long and somewhat lacking in focus. Two key things I look for in a proposed charter are what problem (or problems) the proposed WG is looking to solve and an initial approach to the problem or problems. In the new draft charter, the problem statement appears to be in paragraph 4 with paragraph 1 providing important background. The focus of the work appears to be on extending TCRTP (RFC 4170) to UDP and to include new compression protocols. In contrast, I have a hard time discerning the initial approach from the new draft charter. In light of this, there are a few things that I wish the new draft charter had definitive proposals for: a) Whether to replace RFC 4170 vs. write a new RFC (could be UDP-only or UDP + RTP/UDP) as a complement to RFC 4170. b) Whether to use ECRTP, ROHCv2 (RFC 5225) and/or IPHC (RFC 2507 ?). Non-use of ECRTP would be a major change to 4170, and I wonder about IPHC, as opposed to the ROHCv2 profiles. c) Analogies to b) for the Mux and Tunnel layers of the stack. Overall, it looks like the first task of the WG is to select the protocol stack to standardize - I have misgivings about that, and would prefer to see a concrete proposal in a crisp charter that ran along the following lines, naming the protocols to be used: 1) RFC 4170 does X, and needs the following changes/additions: X, Y, Z. 2) The WG will replace RFC 4170 with a new RFC that contains: A, B, C. A specific proposal or proposals for the protocol stack or stacks would also narrow the scope of item 9 in the charter on the negotiation mechanism. I also dont see a goal/milestone listed for an extension to or replacement for RFC 4170. Id prefer to see a much shorter more focused draft charter. Theres a bunch of background material that does not seem crucial to the charter, starting w/paragraphs 2 and 3. Thanks, --David From: tsv-area [ <mailto:tsv-area-boun...@ietf.org> mailto:tsv-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jose Saldana Sent: Friday, December 20, 2013 4:26 AM To: <mailto:tc...@ietf.org> tc...@ietf.org; <mailto:tsv-area@ietf.org> tsv-area@ietf.org Cc: Martin Stiemerling Subject: TCMTF-Feedback about a possible BoF in London Hi all, After the feedback received in the BoF in Berlin, we have updated the TCM-TF charter and the two drafts. We have tried to solve all the problems raised during the session. Our plan is to request a new BoF in London next March, so we would like to know your opinion about these two questions: 1. Is the new, reduced scope of TCM-TF suitable to form a working group? 2. We would like to kindly ask people who think that a TCM-TF Working group should be formed, to come forward and send an e-mail to the <mailto:tsv-area@ietf.org> tsv-area@ietf.org mailing list stating it. This feedback will allow us to get a better idea of the convenience of a BoF. The new charter is here: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcmtf/current/msg00465.html> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcmtf/current/msg00465.html This is the old one (presented in Berlin): <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcmtf/current/msg00368.html> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcmtf/current/msg00368.html In these links you can see the differences between the new versions of the drafts and the old ones: <http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-saldana-tsvwg-tcmtf-06.txt&url2=dr aft-saldana-tsvwg-tcmtf-05.txt> http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-saldana-tsvwg-tcmtf-06.txt&url2=dra ft-saldana-tsvwg-tcmtf-05.txt <http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-suznjevic-tsvwg-mtd-tcmtf-02.txt&u rl2=draft-suznjevic-tsvwg-mtd-tcmtf-01.txt> http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-suznjevic-tsvwg-mtd-tcmtf-02.txt&ur l2=draft-suznjevic-tsvwg-mtd-tcmtf-01.txt The main improvements are: - TCP optimization has been removed - The classification of the scenarios has been refined and improved. Some of them have been removed - A section about energy consumption has been added to the main draft - A reference to the potential problem of the MTU and packet loss has been added - The problem of the added delays is studied in detail in the second draft - The improvements of the charter are summarized here: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcmtf/current/msg00466.html> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcmtf/current/msg00466.html Best regards, Jose