Subject: tcpsat minutes

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 14:01 -0800 (PST)

TCPSAT Summary
Report By: Jim Griner ([email-masked])
     
The TCP over Satellite group met on December 8th at 1PM.  Aaron 
Falk, WG chair presented the WG status, showing the following:
     
    (1) The Internet Draft "Enhancing TCP Over Satellite Channels
        using Standard Mechanisms" has been forwarded to the RFC 
        Editor by the IESG for publication as a BCP.
     
    (2) The Internet-Draft "Ongoing TCP Research Related to
        Satellites" is now on revision number five, with nearly all 
        sections completed.  The schedule is to send it to the IESG 
        in February 99.
     
    (3) This was the last meeting of TCPSAT.  All discussions
        concerning TCP over satellites is being moved to the 
        performance implications of link characteristics (pilc) 
        mailing list.  The website for pilc is 
        http://pilc.lerc.nasa.gov/pilc.  All discussions on TCP 
        spoofing and splitting connections are being moved to the 
        tcppep mailing list.  The website for tcppep is 
        http://tcppep.lerc.nasa.gov/tcppep.  However, the TCPSAT 
        mailing list will remain active.
     
Mark Allman, document editor, presented a brief summary of new 
sections added to the research issues draft.  No new sections are 
being solicited for the draft.  Plans are to have all editing done 
in mid-January, and submission to the IESG in mid-February.
     
Jim Griner, NASA Lewis, announced an Internet-Draft is available, 
which defined terminology used in discussions about TCP performance 
enhancing proxies.  draft-griner-tcppep-term-00.txt
     
Rohit Goyal, Ohio State University, presented an overview of the 
Internet-Draft Optimizing TCP over Satellite ATM Networks, 
draft-goyal-tcpsat-tcpatm-00.txt.  Aaron raised the question as to 
whether the TCPSAT group wanted to request a charter change that 
would allow the TCP over ATM over satellite work to be completed in 
the WG.  Many think technical articles should be written about this 
issue, but that it is not within the IETF scope.  There did not seem 
to be consensus or WG energy to take on this additional document.

     
Jim Griner