Subject: [tcmtf] TCM-TF BoF requested for London

From: "Jose Saldana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 12:15:57 +0100

Hi all,
 
A second BoF with the aim of creating a WG has been requested for London. You can find the details here: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki#Transport
 
Best regards,
 
Jose
*	Long name and abbreviation: Tunneling Compressed Multiplexed Traffic Flows (TCMTF)
*	Status: WG Forming, 2nd attempt (1st was IETF-87 in Berlin)
*	Description:
 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4170> RFC4170 (TCRTP) defines a method for grouping packets when a number of UDP/RTP VoIP flows share a common path, considering three different layers: ECRTP header compression; PPPMux multiplexing; L2TPv3 tunneling. TCRTP optimizes the traffic, increasing the bandwidth efficiency of VoIP and reduces the amount of packets per second at the same time. However, in the last years, emerging real-time services which use bare UDP instead of UDP/RTP have become popular. Due to the need of interactivity, many of these services use small packets (some tens of bytes). Some other services also send small packets, but they are not delay-sensitive (e.g., instant messaging, m2m packets in sensor networks). In addition, a significant effort has been devoted to the deployment of new header compression methods with improved robustness (ROHC).
So there is a need of replacing  <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4170> RFC4170 with an extended solution able to optimize these new flows, also using improved compression methods. The same structure of three layers (header compression, multiplexing and tunneling) will be considered.
New scenarios where bandwidth savings are desirable have been identified, in addition to those considered in  <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4170> RFC4170. In these scenarios, there are moments or places where network capacity gets scarce, so allocating more bandwidth is a possible solution, but it implies a recurring cost. However, the inclusion of a pair of boxes able to optimize the traffic when/where required is a one-time investment. These scenarios can be classified into:
*	Multidomain, the TCMT-TF tunnel goes all the way from one network edge to another, and can therefore cross several domains.
*	Single Domain, TCM-TF is only activated inside an ISP, from the edge to border inside the network operator.
*	Private Solutions. TCM-TF is used to connect private networks geographically apart (e.g. corporation headquarters and subsidiaries), without the ISP being aware or having to manage those flows.
*	Mixed Scenarios, any combination of the previous ones.
The BOF will discuss the proposed charter, with the aim of the creation of a Working Group in order to specify the protocol stack, signaling mechanisms and maximum added delay recommendations for tunneling, compressing and multiplexing traffic flows (TCM-TF). This BoF is intended to form a WG.
*	The responsible Area Director (AD): Martin Stiemerling, Spencer Dawkins
*	BoF Chairs (or the ADs as placeholders): Martin Stiemerling, Spencer Dawkins
*	Number of people expected to attend: 80
*	Length of session: 1 hour
*	Conflicts to avoid (Whole area and/or WGs): All TSV WGs, TSVAREA, 6lowpan, avtcore, avtext, rtcweb, mmusic, l2vpn, l3vpn, softwire
*	Does it require WebEX?: No
*	Does it require Meetecho?: Yes, will have a number of remote participants
Links to the mailing list, draft charter if any, relevant Internet-Drafts, etc.:
Mailing List:  <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcmtf> ​https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcmtf
Draft charter: ​ <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcmtf/current/msg00493.html> ​http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcmtf/current/msg00493.html
Relevant I-Ds: ​ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-saldana-tsvwg-tcmtf/> ​https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-saldana-tsvwg-tcmtf/
​ <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-suznjevic-tsvwg-mtd-tcmtf/> ​http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-suznjevic-tsvwg-mtd-tcmtf/