Subject: [Trigtran] Proposed TRIGTRAN Charter - pre-IESG version

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 14:49:56 -0700 (PDT)

Carl and I have submitted the following draft charter to
Allison, and wanted to let the mailing list know this (as a
status report).

The draft charter isn't completely roughed out - the version we
submitted to Allison has a couple of questions for her as well.

Allison will be working out the final charter as a contract with
a working group, so please be thinking of anything you see that
needs to be addressed in the charter.

Think narrowly defined, short-term deliverables, and achievable.

Thanks!

Spencer, for Spencer and Carl

Triggers for Transports (trigtran) 

Chair(s):
Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Carl Williams <[email-masked]>

Transport Area Advisor:
Allison Mankin <[email-masked]>

Technical Advisor(s):
-------------- Allison, would an INT AD be useful here? We had one in PILC ---------------
-------------- and probably need one in TRIGTRAN more --------------------------------------

General Discussion: [email-masked]
To Subscribe: [email-masked]
In Body: subscribe
Archives: www.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/trigtran/current/maillist.html

Description of Working Group:

The primary purpose of the TRIGTRAN Working Group will be the specification of explicit 
mechanisms used to notify transport implementations about subnetwork events.

The Performance Implications of Link Characteristics (PILC) working group has produced 
Best Current Practice specifications for TCP operation over “challenged” subnetworks, 
without specifying changes to transport protocols. TRIGTRAN addresses many of the same 
“problematic subnetworks” that PILC addressed, but TRIGTRAN may propose changes to 
transport protocols in order to support these subnetworks effectively.

BoF consensus at IETF 56 was that a “Link Up” notification could be provided safely, 
using end-to-end implicit messaging, and would be valuable in a number of environments. 
TRIGTRAN will focus first on “Link Up” as its prototype notification, because all other 
notifications will be more complex and require more framework than “Link Up” does.

TRIGTRAN specifications will address these points:

- The justification for a specific notification
- A choice between explicit and implicit notifications
- A choice between end-to-end and edge-to-end notifications
- A description of the notification itself
- A suggested transport response to this notification
- Implementation considerations for well-known subnetwork technologies
- Security considerations for this notification

The barrier for approval of a notification is tightly coupled with its security considerations. 
If light-weight “semi-secure” mechanisms like “purpose-built keys” are available and appropriate, 
a more aggressive response to a notification may be appropriate than a reasonable response to a 
completely-unauthenticated datagram notification arriving from anywhere in the connected Internet.

Relationship between TRIGTRAN and other IETF entities:

1. The PILC working group will suspend operation when the “Advice for Internet Subnetwork Designers” 
   draft is approved by IESG for publication.
2. -------------- Allison, how should TRIGTRAN interact with TSVWG? --------------- 
3. SCTP, DCCP, and other “non-TCP” transport working groups

Goals and Milestones:
Aug 2003	Problem statement for “Link Up” notifications to IESG (Informational)
Aug 2003	Summary of possible notifications to IESG (Informational)
Dec 2003	Specification for “Link Up” to IESG {Experimental/Proposed Standard}
Dec 2003	Problem statements for other notifications to IESG, if required
Dec 2003	Recharter for other notifications or shutdown the working group