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 don't see a goal/milestone listed for an extension to
or replacement for RFC 4170.
I'd prefer to see a much shorter more focused draft charter. There's 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:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jose Saldana
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2013 4:26 AM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
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
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 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
This is the old one (presented in Berlin):
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=draft-saldana-tsvwg-tcmtf-05.txt
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-suznjevic-tsvwg-mtd-tcmtf-02.txt&url2=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
Best regards,
Jose
