Subject: Re: [tcmtf] Backwards compatibility with RFC4170

From: "Jose Saldana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 16:21:25 -0000

Hi, Brian, thanks for the summary of the BoF:

It is clear that RFC4170 is one of the options of the tcmtf stack. If people
think we should maintain backwards compatibility instead of obsoleting it,
we should modify three sentences of the draft:
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcmtf/current/msg00493.html) 

The current charter draft (v11) says:

"3. So there is a need of replacing RFC4170 with an extended solution able
to optimize these new flows ..."

"5. (...) In addition, since the current RFC 4170 would be considered as one
of the options, this RFC would be obsoleted."

"Goals and Milestones
	
Specification of TCM-TF reference model and the scenarios of interest. This
would obsolete RFC4170."

The new version could say instead:

"3. So there is a need of adding new options to the one considered in
RFC4170, thus building an extended solution able to optimize these new
flows..."

"5. (...) In addition, backwards compatibility with RFC 4170 will be
granted, since it will be considered as one of the optimization options."

"Goals and Milestones
	
Specification of TCM-TF reference model and the scenarios of interest.
Backwards compatibility with RFC4170 will be granted."

What do you think?

Jose

> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: tcmtf [mailto:[email-masked]] En nombre de Brian Trammell
> Enviado el: miércoles, 05 de marzo de 2014 13:51
> Para: [email-masked]
> Asunto: [tcmtf] Thank you for a great BoF!
> 
> Greetings, all,
> 
> Thanks to everyone for yesterday's BoF. We got lots of good input, and a
> better handle on what a future TCMTF WG might look like.
> 
> There are a few issues we identified that we'll have to take into
> consideration for a new draft of the charter:
> 
> (1) make it clear that backward compatibility with RFC 4170 is a goal.
> 
> (2) an applicability statement, which explains applications that benefit
from
>     TCMTF and the situations for which it is likely useful, and
applications
>     and situations for which it is not. This should address interactions
between
>     TCMTF tunnels and TCP cross traffic sharing a bottleneck link.
> 
> (3) interactions with how this interacts with diverse lower layers,
especially
>     with respect to different delay tolerances, will have to be
considered.
> 
> And we'd really more input from vendors already building boxes in this
> space, and operators deploying them, as input to scoping and
applicability.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Mirja and Brian (second TCMTF BoF chairs)
> _______________________________________________
> tcmtf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcmtf