tcpsat minutes

From: [email protected]
Date: Tue Jan 05 1999 - 17:01:25 EST


TCPSAT Summary
Report By: Jim Griner ([email protected])
     
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



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 14 2000 - 16:14:52 EST