Re: [clue] Minutes: Design Team Meeting - Jan. 17th, 2012
Roni even <Even.roni@huawei.com> Fri, 20 January 2012 23:29 UTC
Return-Path: <Even.roni@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: clue@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: clue@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BC4521F8592 for <clue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:29:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.566
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.566 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.033, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Rt4d+d97MmlJ for <clue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:29:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com (szxga04-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.67]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9C6921F8548 for <clue@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:29:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga04-in [172.24.2.12]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LY400ECSEKBP0@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for clue@ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jan 2012 07:28:59 +0800 (CST)
Received: from szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LY400JOSEKBKY@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for clue@ietf.org; Sat, 21 Jan 2012 07:28:59 +0800 (CST)
Received: from szxeml212-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.1.9-GA) with ESMTP id AGL71168; Sat, 21 Jan 2012 07:28:58 +0800
Received: from SZXEML417-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.156) by szxeml212-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.181) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Sat, 21 Jan 2012 07:28:49 +0800
Received: from SZXEML536-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.99]) by szxeml417-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.156]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Sat, 21 Jan 2012 07:28:53 +0800
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 23:28:53 +0000
From: Roni even <Even.roni@huawei.com>
In-reply-to: <CAHBDyN6z4oEPpJxzSDAQs8hTjBDNauJsS_j6wg_Z8HnHBpey1Q@mail.gmail.com>
X-Originating-IP: [172.24.1.45]
To: Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>, CLUE <clue@ietf.org>
Message-id: <EADCEEE0AE4A7F46BD61061696794D98023A70D9@szxeml536-mbs.china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-language: en-US
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Thread-topic: [clue] Minutes: Design Team Meeting - Jan. 17th, 2012
Thread-index: AQHM18ER0yq5moqEUUaDw1/vWVLY1JYV5kvc
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
References: <CAHBDyN6z4oEPpJxzSDAQs8hTjBDNauJsS_j6wg_Z8HnHBpey1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [clue] Minutes: Design Team Meeting - Jan. 17th, 2012
X-BeenThere: clue@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: CLUE - ControLling mUltiple streams for TElepresence <clue.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/clue>, <mailto:clue-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/clue>
List-Post: <mailto:clue@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:clue-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/clue>, <mailto:clue-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 23:29:06 -0000
Hi Mary, The action item "Close Ticket #2, Open a new ticket for any changes to the framework that may be necessary based on WG consensus [Chairs]" My understanding is that the new ticket will be about getting consensus about the compose attribute if it is a Boolean or a data structure describing the composed image. Roni ________________________________________ From: clue-bounces@ietf.org [clue-bounces@ietf.org] on behalf of Mary Barnes [mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 0:15 To: CLUE Subject: [clue] Minutes: Design Team Meeting - Jan. 17th, 2012 Hi all, Below, please find the minutes from the design team meeting held on Jan 17th, 2012. The minutes are also on the wiki. Thanks to Marshall and John Leslie for taking notes. http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/clue/trac/wiki/Design-Team I will shortly forward Webex details for next Tuesday's call. Regards, Mary. ====================================================== CLUE WG Design Team Call January 17th, 2012 Chairs: Mary Barnes Attendees: Stephen Botzko Mark Duckworth Marshall Eubanks Roni Even Jonathan Lennox John Leslie Andy Pepperell Allyn Romanow Summary of action items: - Close Ticket #2, Open a new ticket for any changes to the framework that may be necessary based on WG consensus [Chairs] - Ticket #3. Assign Roni as the owner. [Chairs] - Ticket #5. Add link to Stephan's proposal: Update ticket to reflect that the issue is eliciting WG feedback on the proposal. [Chairs] Notes by Marshall Eubanks (starting at 10:14:42 EST): Administrivia. This call will repeat at the same time every Tuesday. The issue tracker link is in an email from Paul. Paul or Mary will edit the issue tracker, with links to relevant email posts. Ticket 2 : Roni : The open issue on "my" action Action item to the chair is to update the ticket to reflect that the component is the framework document. Roni : Who is the owner ? Mary : The WG Chairs make the call. Mark would be the owner. Mark : If you do that, aren't you changing everything about the ticket. Stephan Wenger won't be doing this. Can't you close this one and open another? Mary : We can do that, to actually reflect the fact that there will a change to the framework. Mark : And we would need a discussion about this on the ML. Mary : Ticket # 3 : Use case to feed into RTCWEB. Do we have a volunteer ? Roni : I can draft a statement, but I am not sure what is the point. Stephen : It might impact the signaling design? Roni : That would be dependent on the transport we chose. Stephen : You have a short use case and that implies requirements on CLUE and RTCWEB. Roni : For the moment, all we can say is that it exists. I can't even describe how RTCWEB clients work. I will draft something and send it to the list. Stephen : Should it go to the RTCWEB list ? Mary : I would rather discuss it on the CLUE list first. Mary : Ticket 4 : We are going to identify all of the metadata used in clue. Roni : That's the framework. That's the agreement as I understand it. ? : What is metadata ? Marshall : Data are things like bit rates, while metadata are things like spatial relationships. things not in most existing systems. Roni : I was under the impression that this is being worked on in the framework document. Mary : This is likely to be open for quite a while. Ticket 5 : Mark : There was discussions of this but I don't think that we came to conclusions. We need to go back to the group Mary : Stephan made the proposal and we need to decide what we are going to do about it. Roni : This one is different - we need a proposal about what we are going about it. First, is this just a Boolean or not ? If not, what is the data structure we are going to give it. Allyn : I don't think that there is agreement as to whether or not this is a Boolean. Ticket 6: [MB] Jonathan : I will send an email. This is necessary work for telepresence. Roni : It is connected to ticket 1, for which Jonathan is the owner. He said that he would do that. Mary : I think we are done with the tickets. Roni : What about the editors who are supposed to rev the framework document. Allyn : I am hoping by end of next week. We are trying to make it more accessible. Mark : Will Mary or Paul send out an agenda and a notice for the next call ? Mary : Yes. Thanks everyone ! Call ended @ Tue Jan 17 10:46:58 EST 2012 Notes by John Leslie: 1010 Marshall agreed to take notes ? next call… every Tuesday, same time (potential conflict for Marshall) Mary: we could re-do the doodle… Mary: walk-through issue tracker, the WGCs will do any updates Roni: issue #2 is done… we're not clear what belongs in use-cases vs frameworks Mary: action. get this into framework Roni: not my action item anymore Mary: WGC to update ticket to say belongs to framework document -- action was initially for Roni to post Mark: are you changing everything? if so, suggest close & open a new ticket Mary: we can close this and open a new one Mark: discussion how framework handles use cases Mary: #3, should have use case to feed into RTCWEB; we need a physical person Roni: I can draft something about RTCWEB, but what's the difference which client? Stephen: if RTCWEB needs to be CLUE-aware, that's a difference: short use-case implies requirements for both Roni: I'll draft something and send it to the (CLUE) list 1025 Mary: #4, not necessarily belongs to framework Roni: the metadata definition will be in the framework Mary: I'd have to check my notes, I'll take action to do that Mark: what is the "metadata" Roni: what we call data model Mary: all the information that has to be exchanges Marshall: I thought metadata was things like left vs. right channel; things most existing applications don't handle (like WebEx) Mark: people might contribute XML-like description; haven't seen any Stephen: I recall some reference (vaguely)… metadata-XML -- maybe cisco working on that Allyn: things have changed, but basically yes Mark: premature to get it to W3C Mary: do we need a separate ticket for detailing? Roni: we need to discuss on-list 1032 Mary: #5, Mark: discussed somewhat by Stephan Mary: will update with link to discussion Mark: need to discuss on-list to see what we agree on Mary: Stephan has made the proposal, should I thus close this ticket Marshall: it should be turned over to someone else, in other WGs they submerge in details, you may get 15 ticket changes in one day Mary: update to next-step WG discuss Roni: I think it's different -- how deeply we go into describing composed captures John: aren't different vendors going to do it differently anyway Stephen: think we need to discuss anyway, but limit the scope Allyn: some folks strongly want it to be (just) boolean Roni: point-to-point case; multipoint case… is this something we want to discuss Mary: update: framework will be updated to reflect consensus 1040 Mary: #6 Roni: question arose whether this in in charter scope Jonathan: I'm mostly muted… I think this is necessary (confusion what ticket Jonathan is talking about) Mary: Paul & I will double-check ticket 6 Mary: 15 minutes left Roni: what about updates to other parts of the documents Allyn: hoping for next version by the end of next week… make it more accessible Mark: keep the intent the same, explain better Allyn: end of next week should be possible Mark: that's the earliest Mary: latest is week of February 3rd Mark: for next week, will Mary/Paul send notice Mary: yes, by noon Monday… if no discussion, we might not hold it 1046 adjourn _______________________________________________ clue mailing list clue@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/clue