Subject: [tcmtf] BoF proposal for Berlin. Possible scheme

From: "Jose Saldana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 12:25:04 +0200

Hi all.

According to  <http://www.ietf.org/meeting/cutoff-dates-2013.html#IETF87>
http://www.ietf.org/meeting/cutoff-dates-2013.html#IETF87, 2013-06-17
(Monday) is the cutoff date for BOF proposal requests to Area Directors. So
we still have a month.

we could discuss a bit the possible scheme for the BoF proposal.

According to Martin's suggestion, we could begin the session with a teaser
presentation describing what the exact issues are and what is the need for
standardization.

So we could follow this structure:

1- Teaser presentation: describing the problem and the need for
standardization

2- Charter: Documents to be generated within this potential WG

3- Draft A: Explaining the current TCMTF proposal

4- Draft B: Explaining the content of the draft about delay requirements,
classification methods, etc.

Dan Wing could be in charge of (1). This would be good, since he is one of
the authors of RFC4170 (the RFC we should "update" with TCMTF), so he knows
the whole story. In addition, he has been in the TCMTF draft from the very
beginning.

I could be in charge of (2), mainly explaining the charter.

Perhaps someone from Telefonica could be in charge of (3).

Mirko Suznjevic could present (4), since he is the first author.

What do you think? Any ideas?

Thanks a lot and best regards!,

Jose

---

From: Mirko Sužnjević <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 08:07:46 +0000

Hello everybody,
Well I concur with the structure. I believe that the main thing is to do is to well formulate and explain the problem. We must prove in a coherent way that the problem we are addressing here is a problem worth putting effort to and worth solving. In short we must present all the benefits the  solving of our problem might bring. We more or less covered the network aspects of the TCMTF. Maybe one of the previously not emphasized things is the notion of energy savings which TCMTF implementation might bring.  I am not certain would such topics be interesting in the IETF, but it was interesting for the European Commission.
Ofcourse I will create the presentation regarding my part.
Cheers!
Mirko Suznjevic

From: Jose Saldana [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 12:25 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Martin Stiemerling; Dan Wing; Mirko Sužnjević
Subject: BoF proposal for Berlin. Possible scheme

Hi all.

According to http://www.ietf.org/meeting/cutoff-dates-2013.html#IETF87, 2013-06-17 (Monday) is the cutoff date for BOF proposal requests to Area Directors. So we still have a month.

According to Martin's suggestion, we could begin the session with a teaser presentation describing what the exact issues are and what is the need for standardization.

1- Teaser presentation: describing the problem and the need for standardization

4- Draft B: Explaining the content of the draft about delay requirements, classification methods, etc.

Dan Wing could be in charge of (1). This would be good, since he is one of the authors of RFC4170 (the RFC we should "update" with TCMTF), so he knows the whole story. In addition, he has been in the TCMTF draft from the very beginning.

Jose

---

From: JUAN ANTONIO CASTELL LUCIA <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 10:22:12 +0000

Hi all, I also concur with your proposal and with Mirko's suggestions. In addition, I also would emphasize TCMTF will help to mitigate the excessive overhead that IPv6 may suppose in the near future due to its greater header.

Regarding TEF participation in Draft A) presentation, we hope answer you something in few days...

Best Regards

De: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] En nombre de Mirko Sužnjevic
Enviado el: martes, 14 de mayo de 2013 10:08
Para: [email-masked]
Asunto: Re: [tcmtf] BoF proposal for Berlin. Possible scheme

Hello everybody,

To: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>

Hi all.

Jose

________________________________

Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace situado más abajo.
This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at:
http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx

---

From: FERNANDO PASCUAL BLANCO <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 11:00:37 +0000

Hello everybody,

I think it is a good way to face the problem we intend to solve. Actually I think the best way to start the BoF is as you suggested, Dan is the one that can explain why RFC4170 needs to be updated because he lived there and, of course, what need to be solved nowadays, because, believe me, it exist. And rephrasing Juan Antonio with IPv6 the need will be bigger.

Regards,

Fernando Pascual Blanco
Telefónica Global Resources
Network Automation and Dynamization
TECHNOLOGY PEOPLE GROUP
F +34913128779
M +34682005168
[email-masked]

From: JUAN ANTONIO CASTELL LUCIA <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Date: martes, 14 de mayo de 2013 12:22
To: Mirko Sužnjević <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, "[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Subject: Re: [tcmtf] BoF proposal for Berlin. Possible scheme

Hi all, I also concur with your proposal and with Mirko’s suggestions. In addition, I also would emphasize TCMTF will help to mitigate the excessive overhead that IPv6 may suppose in the near future due to its greater header.

Regarding TEF participation in Draft A) presentation, we hope answer you something in few days…

Best Regards

De: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> [mailto:[email-masked]] En nombre de Mirko Sužnjevic
Enviado el: martes, 14 de mayo de 2013 10:08
Para: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
Asunto: Re: [tcmtf] BoF proposal for Berlin. Possible scheme

Hello everybody,

Hi all.

According to Martin’s suggestion, we could begin the session with a teaser presentation describing what the exact issues are and what is the need for standardization.

Dan Wing could be in charge of (1). This would be good, since he is one of the authors of RFC4170 (the RFC we should “update” with TCMTF), so he knows the whole story. In addition, he has been in the TCMTF draft from the very beginning.

Jose

---

From: "Jose Saldana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 10:57:34 +0200

Hi, Mirko.

The idea of energy savings is also interesting. People are getting more and
more concerned with the energy consumption. Not only European Commission,
but also smartphone and tablet manufacturers: the duration of the battery is
critical there.

For example, "Qualcomm has developed a solution called Network Socket
Request Manager (NSRM) for efficient application management. NSRM reduces
smart phone signaling traffic by bundling application requests and
intelligently delaying them. NSRM provides significant signaling reduction
and also improves stand-by time."

<http://www.qualcomm.com/media/documents/qualcomm-research-managing-backgrou
nd-data-traffic-mobile-devices>
http://www.qualcomm.com/media/documents/qualcomm-research-managing-backgroun
d-data-traffic-mobile-devices

Perhaps we could also include this idea in the presentations. The benefits
of packet grouping are 3 instead of 2:

1- Bandwidth saving

2- PPS reduction

3- Energy savings

What do you think? Will people at the IETF like energy savings?

Best regards,

Jose

De: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] En nombre de
Mirko Sužnjevic
Enviado el: martes, 14 de mayo de 2013 10:08
Para: [email-masked]
Asunto: Re: [tcmtf] BoF proposal for Berlin. Possible scheme

Hello everybody,

Well I concur with the structure. I believe that the main thing is to do is
to well formulate and explain the problem. We must prove in a coherent way
that the problem we are addressing here is a problem worth putting effort to
and worth solving. In short we must present all the benefits the  solving of
our problem might bring. We more or less covered the network aspects of the
TCMTF. Maybe one of the previously not emphasized things is the notion of
energy savings which TCMTF implementation might bring.  I am not certain
would such topics be interesting in the IETF, but it was interesting for the
European Commission.

Cheers!

Mirko Suznjevic

Hi all.

According to http://www.ietf.org/meeting/cutoff-dates-2013.html#IETF87,
2013-06-17 (Monday) is the cutoff date for BOF proposal requests to Area
Directors. So we still have a month.

 

 

Jose

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 10:09:57 +0100

My guess is that many people at the IETF would "like" to see people say
they plan to implement for a product, or that they plan to devote
significant effort to seeing the standard matches their need for a
particular use case (e.g. operators or equipment vendors). This can be a
strong indication that there is a need for a standard.  This can be in a
slide, or at the Mic or on the list, slides, etc...

If it's just researchers wanting toi agree a spec that may also be OK, but
then it could be an IRTF activity that comes up with an experimental spec
for people to evaluate.

Gorry

> Mirko Su¾njevic
> Cc: Martin Stiemerling; Dan Wing; Mirko Su¾njeviæ
> _______________________________________________
> tcmtf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcmtf
>

---

From: "Jose Saldana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 11:44:53 +0200

Thanks, Gorry.

It is clear that we should emphasize the interest of the industry on TCMTF.
And someone from the industry saying "we have plans for implementing this"
will be really convenient.

Currently, the main draft includes (as authors or contributing authors)
people from Univ. Zaragoza, Cisco, Ericsson and Telefonica. The Draft B
includes Univ. Zagreb and Univ. Zaragoza.

So we should definitely try to find an equilibrium between industry and
academia. The (preliminary) distribution of the presentations is:

1- Teaser presentation: describing the problem and the need for
standardization. Dan Wing (Cisco). I think that the idea of the industry
interest should be stressed here.

2- Charter: Documents to be generated within this potential WG. Jose Saldana
(University of Zaragoza)
 
3- Draft A: Explaining the current TCMTF proposal. Someone from Telefonica
would be perfect here (they are thinking about it)
 
4- Draft B: Explaining the content of the draft about delay requirements,
classification methods, etc. Mirko Suznevic (University of Zagreb)

(5- Possible presentation of a new draft about satellite scenario. Someone
from DLR.)

So we would have 3 industry people + 2 academia people presentations. Do you
think this distribution would be convenient?

Thanks!

Jose

> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Enviado el: miércoles, 15 de mayo de 2013 11:10
> Para: [email-masked]
> CC: "'Mirko Su¾njeviæ'"; [email-masked]
they
> plan to implement for a product, or that they plan to devote significant
effort
> to seeing the standard matches their need for a particular use case (e.g.
> operators or equipment vendors). This can be a strong indication that
there is
> a need for a standard.  This can be in a slide, or at the Mic or on the
list, slides,
> etc...
then
> it could be an IRTF activity that comes up with an experimental spec for
> people to evaluate.
> 
> Gorry
> 
> > Hi, Mirko.
> >
> >
> >
> > The idea of energy savings is also interesting. People are getting
> > more and more concerned with the energy consumption. Not only
> European
> > Commission, but also smartphone and tablet manufacturers: the duration
> > of the battery is critical there.
> >
> >
> >
> > Request Manager (NSRM) for efficient application management. NSRM
> > reduces smart phone signaling traffic by bundling application requests
> > and intelligently delaying them. NSRM provides significant signaling
> > reduction and also improves stand-by time."
> >
> >
> > <http://www.qualcomm.com/media/documents/qualcomm-research-
> managing-ba
> > ckgrou
> > http://www.qualcomm.com/media/documents/qualcomm-research-
> managing-bac
> > kgroun
> > Perhaps we could also include this idea in the presentations. The
> > benefits of packet grouping are 3 instead of 2:
> >
> >
> >
> > 1- Bandwidth saving
> >
> > 2- PPS reduction
> >
> > 3- Energy savings
> >
> >
> >
> > De: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] En nombre
> > de Mirko Su¾njevic Enviado el: martes, 14 de mayo de 2013 10:08
> > Para: [email-masked]
> > Well I concur with the structure. I believe that the main thing is to
> > do is to well formulate and explain the problem. We must prove in a
> > coherent way that the problem we are addressing here is a problem
> > worth putting effort to and worth solving. In short we must present
> > all the benefits the  solving of our problem might bring. We more or
> > less covered the network aspects of the TCMTF. Maybe one of the
> > previously not emphasized things is the notion of energy savings which
> > TCMTF implementation might bring.  I am not certain would such topics
> > be interesting in the IETF, but it was interesting for the European
> > Commission.
> >
> > According to
> > http://www.ietf.org/meeting/cutoff-dates-2013.html#IETF87,
> > 2013-06-17 (Monday) is the cutoff date for BOF proposal requests to
> > Area Directors. So we still have a month.
> >
> >
> >
> > According to Martin's suggestion, we could begin the session with a
> > teaser presentation describing what the exact issues are and what is
> > the need for standardization.
> >
> >
> >
> > 4- Draft B: Explaining the content of the draft about delay
> > requirements, classification methods, etc.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Dan Wing could be in charge of (1). This would be good, since he is
> > one of the authors of RFC4170 (the RFC we should "update" with TCMTF),
> > so he knows the whole story. In addition, he has been in the TCMTF
> > draft from the very beginning.
> >
> >
> >

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 20:19:16 +0000

Hi Jose,

If I'm not wrong IETF is also interested in energy saving issues (e.g., eman, roll WGs). I think that in our case it is also important to figure out whether we are talking about battery consumption on mobile devices, sensor nodes, etc. or on the power usage in routers and other intermediate nodes, which is a topic largely addressed in the field of green networking. This differentiation can be clarified according to the specific scenarios we are addressing, so that we can highlight whether tcmtf concepts are more beneficial for the end-nodes or for the network infrastructure. If the latter is the case, probably network operators like Telefonica and device manifacturers like Cisco (who both already contributed to the discussion in this list) can further motivate the need for a standard (or more than one).

Regards,

Tomaso

------------------------
Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR)
German Aerospace Center
Institute of Communications and Navigation | Satellite Networks | Oberpfaffenhofen | 82234 Wessling | Germany
Tomaso de Cola, Ph.D.
Telefon +49 8153 28-2156 | Telefax  +49 8153 28-2844 | [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
http://www.dlr.de/kn/institut/abteilungen/san

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jose Saldana
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 10:58 AM
To: 'Mirko Sužnjević'
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [tcmtf] BoF proposal for Berlin. Possible scheme

Hi, Mirko.

The idea of energy savings is also interesting. People are getting more and more concerned with the energy consumption. Not only European Commission, but also smartphone and tablet manufacturers: the duration of the battery is critical there.

For example, "Qualcomm has developed a solution called Network Socket Request Manager (NSRM) for efficient application management. NSRM reduces smart phone signaling traffic by bundling application requests and intelligently delaying them. NSRM provides significant signaling reduction and also improves stand-by time."
http://www.qualcomm.com/media/documents/qualcomm-research-managing-background-data-traffic-mobile-devices

Perhaps we could also include this idea in the presentations. The benefits of packet grouping are 3 instead of 2:

1- Bandwidth saving
2- PPS reduction
3- Energy savings

Best regards,

Jose

Hello everybody,

Hi all.

Jose

---

From: "Jose Saldana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 10:06:48 +0200

Hi, Tomaso. Your idea is interesting. My opinion:

- TCMTF can reduce pps (and consequently energy) in routers and other
intermediate nodes, since in that place we can find a lot of flows to be
multiplexed together.

- Regarding the battery of a mobile phone, I don't see the savings so
straightforward, since the number of flows is smaller. And you cannot put
together a number of packets belonging to the same real-time flow without
annoying the user. One case I found some days ago: I was downloading a big
file with a  laptop connected via Wi-Fi to a DSL, and I captured the traffic
with Wireshark. I found that my laptop was sending 125 ACKs per second!. If
we put a number of ACKs together (they can be compressed: same origin and
destination, same ports, etc), we can reduce the number of pps, and also
bandwidth. However, we should be careful with TCP timeouts and so on.

Perhaps we could think about other savings in terminals: e.g., sensor
networks?

Best regards,

Jose

De: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Enviado el: miércoles, 15 de mayo de 2013 22:19
Para: [email-masked]
CC: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Asunto: RE: [tcmtf] BoF proposal for Berlin. Possible scheme

Hi Jose,

If I'm not wrong IETF is also interested in energy saving issues (e.g.,
eman, roll WGs). I think that in our case it is also important to figure out
whether we are talking about battery consumption on mobile devices, sensor
nodes, etc. or on the power usage in routers and other intermediate nodes,
which is a topic largely addressed in the field of green networking. This
differentiation can be clarified according to the specific scenarios we are
addressing, so that we can highlight whether tcmtf concepts are more
beneficial for the end-nodes or for the network infrastructure. If the
latter is the case, probably network operators like Telefonica and device
manifacturers like Cisco (who both already contributed to the discussion in
this list) can further motivate the need for a standard (or more than one).

Regards,

Tomaso

------------------------ 
Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR) 
German Aerospace Center 
Institute of Communications and Navigation | Satellite Networks |
Oberpfaffenhofen | 82234 Wessling | Germany 

Tomaso de Cola, Ph.D. 
Telefon +49 8153 28-2156 | Telefax  +49 8153 28-2844 |
<mailto:[email-masked]> [email-masked] 
 <http://www.dlr.de/kn/institut/abteilungen/san>
http://www.dlr.de/kn/institut/abteilungen/san 

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Jose Saldana
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 10:58 AM
To: 'Mirko Sužnjević'
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [tcmtf] BoF proposal for Berlin. Possible scheme

Hi, Mirko.

1- Bandwidth saving

2- PPS reduction

3- Energy savings

Best regards,

Jose

Hello everybody,

Cheers!

Mirko Suznjevic

Hi all.

 

 

Jose

---

From: "Michael Ramalho (mramalho)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 14:18:03 +0000

Hi Jose,

Re: 125 ACKs per second is an ACK every 8 ms or so for your laptop.

Got to be careful when you want to compress/aggregate them ... for example ...

1) If the flow has a long RTT (excluding any RTT increase due to aggregation/delay of some ACKs) ... something like 200 ms RTT ... you can aggregate up to 50 ms worth of them with little decrease in maximum transfer BW.

2) Conversely, if the flow has a short RTT (sub ~70 ms) ... you can lose up to HALF the maximum transfer BW by delaying ACKs by 25ms (on average).

Pick a background packet loss rate and look at the TFRC rate as a function of i.i.d. loss rate  and RTT time attached (generated from the TFRC equation ... the table is just easier to visualize).

Perhaps this could suggest a heuristic for a flow ... look at the nominal RTT (for something like a TCP flow) .. and then determine a reasonable worst-case delay for the TCP ACKs. You heard it first here.

Michael

PS - Qualcomm (I believe, and others) have technology that "aggregates packets" on the mobile when the mobile is in the "not-presently-active/in-use" mode (I forget the exact term they use for that state). Thus they primarily conserve battery by limiting the time the radio functionality needs to be on by aggregating time-insensitive data requests.

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jose Saldana
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 4:07 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; Mirko Sužnjević
Subject: Re: [tcmtf] BoF proposal for Berlin. Possible scheme

- TCMTF can reduce pps (and consequently energy) in routers and other intermediate nodes, since in that place we can find a lot of flows to be multiplexed together.

- Regarding the battery of a mobile phone, I don't see the savings so straightforward, since the number of flows is smaller. And you cannot put together a number of packets belonging to the same real-time flow without annoying the user. One case I found some days ago: I was downloading a big file with a  laptop connected via Wi-Fi to a DSL, and I captured the traffic with Wireshark. I found that my laptop was sending 125 ACKs per second!. If we put a number of ACKs together (they can be compressed: same origin and destination, same ports, etc), we can reduce the number of pps, and also bandwidth. However, we should be careful with TCP timeouts and so on.

Perhaps we could think about other savings in terminals: e.g., sensor networks?

Best regards,

Jose

Hi Jose,

Regards,

Tomaso

------------------------

From: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jose Saldana
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 10:58 AM
To: 'Mirko Sužnjević'
Cc: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [tcmtf] BoF proposal for Berlin. Possible scheme

Hi, Mirko.

1- Bandwidth saving
2- PPS reduction
3- Energy savings

Best regards,

Jose

Hello everybody,

Hi all.

Jose

---

From: "Jose Saldana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 16:59:26 +0200

I have some (good) news regarding the presentations. Diego R. Lopez agrees
to be in charge of the second presentation. So I would switch to the third
one.

1- Teaser presentation: describing the problem and the need for
standardization. Dan Wing, Cisco

2- Charter: Documents to be generated within this potential WG. Diego R.
Lopez, Telefonica

3- Draft A: Explaining the current TCMTF proposal. Jose Saldana, University
of Zaragoza

4- Draft B: Explaining the content of the draft about delay requirements,
classification methods, etc. Mirko Suznjevic, University of Zagreb

(5-  Specific uses of TCMTF in wireless and satellite scenarios) To be
confirmed

Best regards,

Jose

De: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] En nombre de Jose
Saldana
Enviado el: lunes, 13 de mayo de 2013 12:25
Para: [email-masked]
CC: Mirko Sužnjević; Dan Wing; Martin Stiemerling
Asunto: [tcmtf] BoF proposal for Berlin. Possible scheme

Hi all.

 

 

Jose