Bulk Transport Protocol Call Friday, February 11, 2005 Attendees: Stanislav Shalunov Steve Senger Larry Dunn Injong Rhee Susan Evett (scribe) Call started at noon, 12:00 US/Eastern. Agenda 1. Review of previous action items 2. Transport group web presence 3. Joint Techs next week (Steven and Stanislav are going) 4. Design Space Survey comments Requirements Conclusions Appendix (1/p) 5. Internet2 WG status 1. Review of Previous Action Items a. Stanislav to develop a charter and side materials to request Internet2 working group status. [In progress] b. Stanislav: incorporate Lisong's TCP Westwood description. [Done] c. Stanislav: address Bartek's comments about MaxNet and XCP. [Done] d. Stanislav: draft conclusions section for design space survey. [Done] e. All: look at the requirements section of the document to ensure it captures the intent of the group. Send comments to the mailing list. (A simple ``I think this is what we want to build'' is OK, too.) [Done by Larry and Stas.] f. Steven: contact the authors of the SCTP RFC to discuss models of partial reliability other than timed reliability. [Pending.] g. Steven: write up API specification. [In progress. ETA of -00 version: 2005-02-18] h. Stanislav to modify the draft based on discussion items with Guy Almes. [Done] 2. Transport group web presence Stanislav created a temporary web space for the group at http://www.internet2.edu/~shalunov/transport/ -- the idea is to move that material to an official location once WG status has been conferred upon the group. Stanislav asked if folks had had a chance to look at the web space. Steve said that it looked like a good start to him. If someone wants to send an introductory paragraph, please feel free to send it to Stanislav. Injong asked if the name of the group, Interent2 Transport WG, would be the one used -- felt might be too broad. Injong wondered if *bulk* transport was the only goal -- need to clarify that bulk transfer includes real-time, and other qualifications. They noted that all the deliverables the group envisions would fall under ``bulk transport.'' Larry commented on the historical process of calling WGs after the general space vs. the particular problem (such as with the Routing WG). Decision was deferred until the advisory councils have had input. 3. Joint Techs next week (Steven and Stanislav are going) Presentation slot on Wednesday 02/16/05 - Larry will also be present. Stanislav wanted to inform the community about the effort so that they can have input/get involved before the process goes too far. Larry suggested leading off with a couple of case studies of problems that need a new bulk transport protocol. 4. Design Space Survey comments Review of the most recent draft of the paper. Larry asked about the inclusion of MaxNet -- Stanislav noted that this is just another explicit option, like XCP. Larry felt that this section did not include a recommendation from the group on this option's suitability. Stanislav said he spoke with Bartek, drafted the text, ran it past Bartek, Lachlan Andrew, and Steven Low, and included the revised text into the document. Discussion about whether this is opening a can of worms -- Stanislav noted that this is for explicit congestion control and there are not that many options available. Comment that there is a different approach between sections 2.1 and 2.2: while 2.1 explicitly lists a number of options, 2.2 does not; Stanislav argues that this is because if the group explicitly listed options in 2.2 it would make the document unwieldy and would be out of scope for the group's efforts. Section 2.1 is reasonably inclusive; MaxNet was relevant to add. Injong asked about the layout of the table of contents: by reading 2.1's header, you expect to see a discussion about the differences between the two approaches. Instead you see only explicit in 2.1 and only implicit in 2.2. Injong wanted to move the introductory para from section 2.1 up to 2, then add references to what 2.1 and 2.2 will address (with some names). In section 2.2, title needs to be changed to reflect header in section 2.1 and introductory paragraph changes (abstract out some of the shared approaches of the various programs). Larry noted that, in terms of balance, section 2 is much longer than the other sections -- the bulk of the report. Stanislav noted that section 2 is close to completion but the other sections are not complete so we should check the balance as we get closer to completion. Stanislav suggested, for example, removing the section number from ``Future Work,'' which is a small paragraph of text. Stanislav asked for input on the conclusions -- Larry said that he has heard some pushback on this re: User Space (might really cost a lot and might only allow one application to be running at a time). Stanislav felt that we could include a description of the downsides; he will attempt to quantify it. Larry felt that quantification would be heroic, but probably not necessary. Stanislav asked Injong re: his agreement to being a co-author to the paper - Injong just emailed Stanislav about it; Stanislav noted that he will be credited in the next version of the document. Stanislav asked about the appendix -- Larry had some concerns with the applicability. His concern is with the text connections between the formulas is somewhat questionable. ``Converge'' is not defined, for example. Stanislav believed that the derivation was OK (and was willing to hear about any errors), but the applicability might have been stretched and asked for examples of such stretching, if they exist. Larry asked if the derivation for this paper is self-contained or taken from earlier works; Stanislav said that, although, there is another version of this work, this is self-contained. Larry offered to take a closer look at the section and be more concrete with his concerns by the time he sees Stanislav on 2005-02-16. Stanislav asked about the new title. Larry was also concerned that the title for the document might be misleading about the status of the work -- that it was already complete or nearly complete. Injong suggested including ``space'' again in the title to indicate that the group is open to options; title of paper changed to ``Design Space for a Bulk Transport Tool.'' Steve and Larry noted that the paper was printing with extra-large margins; Stanislav will look into why this is so. 5. Internet2 WG status Stanislav was recently told of the list of documents that need to be completed and submitted. He will draft the charter and submit to the group for review and approval before submitting it. ACTION ITEMS: a. Stanislav to develop a charter and side materials to request Internet2 working group status. [ETA for charter: 2005-02-18.] b. Steven: contact the authors of the SCTP RFC to discuss models of partial reliability other than timed reliability. [ETA: 2005-02-18.] c. Steven: write up API specification. [ETA for -00: 2005-02-18.] d. Larry to more carefully review the Appendix with an aim to having concrete suggestions for changes to this section by 2005-02-16. e. Stanislav to change the title of the document to ``Design Space for a Bulk Transport Tool.'' f. Stanislav to change the .pdf in a future version to remove the extra-large margins. [Low priority for now] Next call is at the same time on 2005-02-18. Call ended at 13:00 US/Eastern.