Subject: [dcp] Re: DCP charter.....

From: Sally Floyd <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 17:08:22 -0800

>so is there a draft protocol to review at the BOF?
>or at least a sketch of a protocol?

Yep, you could look at the DCP web page at:
 http://www.aciri.org/kohler/dcp/
and at the four internet drafts on that page.

>or is this seeking permission to create a design WG??
>
>if it is the last item, "Just Say No."
>
>i suggest a design WG cannot be chartered for this
>effort because by the time it finishes, it will
>not be in line with its charter, ie, simple, clean,
>etc.  need i point to PPP as the object lesson??

Yep, we agree.  The proposed charter says the following:

 Drafts for DCP, and several associated congestion control IDs, already
 exist.  The first task before the working group will be an abbreviated
 functional requirement validation of those drafts.  There are two
 possible outcomes: (1) The current DCP draft is declared suitable for
 further work, with some areas listed for possible extension.  (2) The
 current DCP draft is declared unsuitable for further work, and more
 formal functional requirement exploration begins.

The authors of the DCP documents hope that the outcome of the
BOF will be to approve the general design of DCP, as discussed in
"draft-kohler-dcp-01.txt", to have some interesting discussions
about specific requirements in terms of mobility and
security, and to get on with the work.  We shall see.

I am cc-ing this to the DCP mailing list, where the
discussion should continue...

- Sally

_______________________________________________
dcp mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dcp

---

From: "Mike O'Dell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 20:54:46 -0500

thanks for the pointers!

	cheers,
	-mo

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 21:36:25 -0800 (PST)

> and at the four internet drafts on that page.

Looked at the drafts and  the major application cited was telephony and
streaming media (control? data?).  While I can see how some of the DCP
services might be desirable, the drafts don't really provide a complete
picture of how DCP will be used, or a convincing argument as to why
alternatives (such as RTP deployed with layered codecs) isn't
sufficient.  As a result, it isn't clear from these documents whether we
have a solution in search of a problem. 

>  formal functional requirement exploration begins.

Seems to me that a more in depth "problem statement" might be helpful,
too. Given that we're finally starting to ship telephony/streaming
media software using other transports, some good arguments will be
needed to persuade folks to change horses in mid-ride. This is
particularly true given how long it seems to ship passable support for new
transports.